Technical

Supplement Form 5

HDS
HO GAN D E V E LO P ME NT S U RVE Y

T H E S C I E N C E O F P E R S O N A L I T Y
Technical
Supplement Form 5

© 2014 by Hogan Press, a division of Hogan Assessment Systems, Inc.

Published in the United States of America.

For information, contact Hogan Press, 2622 E. 21st St., Tulsa, OK 74114.

www.hoganassessments.com

ISBN 978-0-9889286-7-1
 Technical Supplement

Table of Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................5
Development of HDS Subscale Structure ..............................................................................................5
Composition of the HDS Scales: Factor Analyses ...................................................................................8
Procrustes Analysis .............................................................................................................................9
HDS Scale and Subscale Distributions and Reliability .........................................................................11
HDS Parallel Forms Reliability ............................................................................................................13
Construct Validity of the New HDS Form ............................................................................................15
Correlations with Other Assessments ................................................................................................15
Samples and Instruments .................................................................................................................15
Results of Scale-to-Scale Correlates ...................................................................................................21
Correlations with Others’ Descriptions ...............................................................................................25
Samples and Instruments ..................................................................................................................25
Results of Scale and Observer Description Correlates .....................................................................29
Interpretation of HDS Scale and Subscale Scores .............................................................................31
Sample HDS Profile Interpretations ....................................................................................................33
Utility of HDS Subscale Information ...................................................................................................41
Accuracy of HDS Scales ....................................................................................................................41
Value of Subscale Information .............................................................................................................43
Alignment between New HDS Form and Existing Interpretive Text .........................................................45
Expert Testimonials ............................................................................................................................46
References ........................................................................................................................................47

3
 Technical Supplement

Tables and Figures

Table 1 Subscale Names, Definitions, and Sample Items ...........................................................6

Table 2 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix for HDS Subscales ...........................................................8
Table 3 Procrustes Analysis of New HDS to HDS Currently in Use .........................................10
Table 4 Classical Scale and Subscale Statistics for the HDS .....................................................12
Table 5 HDS Test-Retest and Parallel Forms Reliability ..........................................................13
Table 6 Correlations Between HDS Scales and HPI Scales .....................................................17
Table 7 Correlations Between HDS Scales and CPI Scales .....................................................17
Table 8 Correlations Between HDS Scales and NEO PI-R Scales/Facets ......................................18
Table 9 Correlations Between HDS Scales and IPIP Big 5 20-Item Scales ................................19
Table 10 Correlations Between HDS Scales and 16PF Scales .....................................................19
Table 11 Correlations Between HDS Scales and MVPI Scales ...................................................19
Table 12 Correlations Between HDS Scales and CISS Interest and Skill Scales ............................20
Table 13 Correlations Between HDS Scales and JPI-R Scales ......................................................20
Table 14 HDS Correlations with Observer Ratings for Big-Five Mini-Marker Adjectives ...................26
Table 15 HDS Correlations with Observer Ratings for Big-Five Inventory Phrases ..........................27
Table 16 Sample Interpretations for High HDS Scores with and without Subscales ..........................32

Figure 1 HDS “Moving Away” Profile .......................................................................................33

Figure 2 HDS “Moving Against” Profile .....................................................................................34
Figure 3 HDS “Moving Toward” Profile .....................................................................................35
Figure 4 HDS “Corporate Guerilla” Profile ..............................................................................36
Figure 5 HDS “Insecure Showboat” Profile ...............................................................................37
Figure 6 HDS “Litigious” Profile ...............................................................................................38
Figure 7 HDS “Fear-Driven Salesman” Profile ...........................................................................39
Figure 8 Accuracy of HDS Scale Scores in New Form vs. Existing HDS ......................................42
Figure 9 Dichotomous Accuracy of HDS Scale Scores in New Form vs. Existing HDS ....................42
Figure 10 Added Value of HDS Subscale Scores in New Form ....................................................43
Figure 11 Dichotomous Added Value of HDS Subscale Scores in New Form .................................44
Figure 12 Alignment Between New HDS Scale Scores and Existing HDS Reports .......................45
Figure 13 Dichotomous Alignment Between New HDS Scale Scores and Existing HDS Reports .......45

4
 Technical Supplement

Introduction

Since its introduction, the HDS has been used by organizations across the globe to identify and mitigate
personality derailers through applicant screening or employee development. The 11 primary scales of the
HDS fill a niche in personality assessment by providing valid information that can be used by organizations
and individual employees about derailing personality characteristics. Because each HDS scale manifests
itself through different behaviors, cataloging these behavioral themes provides a finer-grained description of
each person’s derailers. For example, two individuals with high Excitable scale scores may behave differently
when under stress. One may become emotionally volatile and moody, whereas the other may give up on
people or projects. Thus, when interpreting HDS results it is useful to explore deeper levels of how each
derailer manifests itself. This technical supplement details the development of a subscale structure for the
HDS, presents new psychometric evidence, provides an overview of scale and subscale interpretation, and
describes testimonials from experts using HDS subscales in applied contexts.

Development of HDS Subscale Structure

Two separate lines of inquiry led to the development of a subscale structure for the HDS. First, years of
interpreting HDS results led to the recognition of predictable behavioral themes associated with each of
the 11 primary scales. Second, clients began asking for more detailed information for each HDS scale.
These observations signaled a need to review each HDS scale to identify subscales represented by
behavioral themes. To address this need, the Hogan Research Division created a task force led by four
senior psychologists with Ph.D.s and an average of 24 years of professional experience. They reviewed the
content of the scales and identified three behavioral subscale themes for each of the 11 primary scales.

Although most HDS items fit well with this new subscale structure, we piloted over 250 candidate items
to better define the new HDS subscale structure. In 18 separate research studies, an average of 2,435
individuals completed the HDS and sets of experimental items as part of personnel selection, employee
coaching, leadership development, and other applications. This helped ensure adequate representation
of occupational (i.e., job family, job level, tenure) and demographic (i.e., age, sex, race/ethnicity)
variables of interest. After each round of testing, we analyzed the psychometric properties of HDS items,
subscales, and scales (i.e., descriptive statistics, differences across applications of HDS data, item-scale
correlations, subscale and scale reliability) and retained items for further testing that correlated with
existing HDS scales.

Following pilot testing, we worked with Dr. Lew Goldberg from the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) to
obtain reliability and validity evidence for the HDS subscale structure. Specifically, we obtained data for
the HDS subscale structure through the longitudinal Eugene-Springfield Community Sample (ESCS). This
sample contains over 1,000 individuals recruited by Dr. Goldberg to participate in longitudinal research,
completing over 30 different psychological instruments over several years. One hundred sixty-two of
these participants provided HDS subscale data, allowing us to determine the viability of this structure
through descriptive statistics, reliability evidence, and convergent and discriminant construct validity
via correlations with other instruments completed by ESCS participants. Information obtained from this
testing supported the reliability and validity of the new HDS subscale structure. We provide this evidence
in subsequent sections of this technical supplement.

5
 Technical Supplement

These results supported the psychometric properties of the new HDS subscale structure, but conveyed
no meaningful information about how individuals behave in stressful situations. To investigate how well
the HDS subscale structure describes individual behavior, we collected HDS scale and subscale data from
over 2,200 individuals. Many of these individuals completed the HDS for Hogan certification workshops,
which include feedback sessions with a certified Hogan coach. We provided HDS scale and subscale
data to Hogan coaches prior to these feedback sessions, and surveyed coaches following each session
to gauge their impressions of the HDS subscale structure. We asked coaches whether the HDS subscale
structure added value to their interpretation of HDS scale results, whether the subscales were more
or less accurate than existing HDS scales in describing individuals, and how well subscale information
aligned with existing interpretive information for HDS scales. Survey results from Hogan coaches indicated
that the subscale structure accurately described individual behavior and added significant value to
interpretation of HDS results.

Implementation of the HDS subscale structure began with translation of content to support global use of
the new structure. Each 14-item HDS scale is represented by three subscales; two five-item subscales
and one four-item subscale. The HDS subscales, their definitions, and sample items appear in Table 1.

Table 1. Subscale Names, Definitions, and Sample Items

HDS Subscale Definition Sample Item
Moody, often angered or annoyed, easily upset and
Excitable: Volatile I can get angry quickly.
hard to soothe.
Excitable: Easily Initial passion for people and projects, who inevitably
Few people have met my expectations.
Disappointed disappoint, and passion then turns to rejection.
Lacking few well defined beliefs or interests, but with
Excitable: No Direction Sometimes I am not sure what I really believe.
regrets about past behavior.
Prone to doubt others’ intentions and assume they When someone does me a favor, I wonder
Skeptical: Cynical
have bad ulterior motives. what he/she wants.
Generalized mistrust of people and institutions; being People who are in charge will take advantage
Skeptical: Mistrusting
alert for signs of perceived mistreatment. of you if you let them.
Holding grudges and being unwilling to forgive real or
Skeptical: Grudges There are some people I will never forgive.
perceived wrongs.
Avoiding new people and situations to avoid imagined
Cautious: Avoidant I feel awkward around strangers.
potential embarrassment.
Afraid of being criticized for making mistakes and being
Cautious: Fearful People sometimes think I am timid.
reluctant to act independently or make decisions.
Unwilling to act assertively and therefore prone to
Cautious: Unassertive People tell me I’m not assertive enough.
being overlooked or ignored.
Reserved: Introverted Valuing one’s private time and preferring to work alone. I consider myself a loner.
Keeping others at a distance, limiting close
Reserved: Unsocial I prefer to keep people at a distance.
relationships, and being generally detached.
Indifferent to the feelings and problems of others,
Reserved: Tough Other people’s problems don’t concern me.
focused on tasks rather than people.
Overtly pleasant and compliant but privately resentful
Leisurely: Passive I sometimes put off doing things for people I
and subversive regarding requests for improved
Aggressive don’t like.
performance.
Leisurely: Believing that one’s talents and contributions are
People at work expect me to do everything.
Unappreciated ignored; perceiving inequities in assigned workloads.
Privately but easily irritated by interruptions, requests, It irritates me to be interrupted when I am
Leisurely: Irritated
or work related suggestions. working on something.

6
 Technical Supplement

Table 1. Subscale Names, Definitions, and Sample Items (Continued)

HDS Subscale Definition Sample Item

Feeling that one has special gifts and
Bold: Entitled accomplishments and, consequently, deserves special I would never take a job that is beneath me.
treatment.
Unusually confident in one’s abilities; belief that one I do many things better than almost everyone
Bold: Overconfidence
will succeed at anything one chooses to undertake. I know.
Believing that one has unusual talents and gifts and
Bold: Fantasized Talent I was born to do great things.
that one has been born for greatness.
Prone to taking risks and testing limits; deliberately I try things that other people think are too
Mischievous: Risky
bending or breaking inconvenient rules. risky.
Tending to act impulsively without considering the long
Mischievous: Impulsive I often do things on the spur of the moment.
term consequences of one’s actions.
Mischievous: Machiavellian tendencies--using charm to manipulate When I want to get my way, I know how to
Manipulative others and no remorse about doing so. “turn on the charm.”
Colorful: Public Expecting others to find one’s public performances
In a group, I am often the center of attention.
Confidence fascinating and not knowing when to be quiet.
Easily distracted, minimal focus, needing constant I like to have several things going on at the
Colorful: Distractible
stimulation, confusing activity with productivity. same time.
Wanting to be the center of attention and using
I sometimes dress so as to stand out from
Colorful: Self-Display dramatic costumes and gestures to attract attention to
the crowd.
oneself.
Expressing unusual views that can be either creative
Imaginative: Eccentric or merely strange; tendency to be absorbed in these People describe me as unconventional.
ideas.
Imaginative: Special Believing that one has special abilities to see things I sometimes feel I have special talents and
Sensitivity others don’t and understand things others can’t. abilities.
Believing that one is unusually creative; easily bored
Imaginative: Creative
and confident in one’s imaginative problem solving Many of my ideas are ahead of their time.
Thinking
ability.
Having exceptionally high standards of performance for I have high standards for my performance at
Diligent: Standards
oneself and others. work.
Perfectionistic about the quality of work products and
Diligent: Perfectionistic I tend to be a perfectionist about my work.
obsessed with the details of their completion.
Meticulous and inflexible about schedules, timing, and
Diligent: Organized I am fussy about schedules and timing.
rules and procedures.
Overly reliant on others for advice and reluctant to On important issues, I dislike making
Dutiful: Indecisive
make decisions or act independently. decisions on my own.
Excessively eager to please one’s superiors, telling
There is nothing wrong with flattering your
Dutiful: Ingratiating them what they want to hear, and never contradicting
boss.
them.
Taking pride in supporting one’s superiors and
Dutiful: Conforming following their orders regardless of one’s personal I take pride in being a good follower.
opinion.

7
 Technical Supplement

Composition of the HDS Scales: Factor Analyses

Factor analysis is a statistical methodology designed to account for the relationships between many
variables using a smaller number of “factors.” A factor represents something shared in common by
different variables; it is a linear combination of items which together define a single construct. Thus, this
technique allows us to examine whether responses to different HDS items cluster together into meaningful
factors, and to make sense of the many thousands of relationships between individual assessment items.

To test the factor structure of the HDS, we used a sample of 2,524 employed adults and conducted an
exploratory Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to determine the underlying constructs (or “principal
components”) of the HDS. We chose the number of components to extract based on the size of the
Eigenvalues and an examination of several alternate solutions. Finally, we refined the components using
orthogonal Varimax rotation to find the most economical solution with the goal of associating each HDS
subscale to one factor. To address methodological differences, we also conducted Principal Axis Factoring
(PAF) on these same data and found the same results in terms of primary and secondary factor loadings
as previously found through PCA analyses. Table 2 presents the results of our PCA factor analysis.

Table 2. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix for HDS Subscales

Factor
Scales & Subscales
I II III IV
Excitable: Volatile .52
Excitable: Easily Disappointed .75
Excitable: No Direction .52
Skeptical: Cynical .61
Skeptical: Mistrusting .67
Skeptical: Grudges .52
Cautious: Avoidant .50
Cautious: Fearful .44 .43
Cautious: Unassertive .31 .55
Reserved: Introverted .59
Reserved: Unsocial .71
Reserved: Tough .49
Leisurely: Passive Aggressive .28 .33
Leisurely: Unappreciated .48
Leisurely: Irritated .62
Bold: Entitled .45
Bold: Overconfidence .43 .41
Bold: Fantasized Talent .63
Mischievous: Risky .55
Mischievous: Impulsive .68
Mischievous: Manipulative .60
Colorful: Public Confidence .67
Colorful: Distractible .37 -.38
Colorful: Self-Display .68
Imaginative: Eccentric .54
Imaginative: Special Sensitivity .54
Imaginative: Creative Thinking .56
Diligent: Standards .71
Diligent: Perfectionistic .68
Diligent: Organized .67
Dutiful: Indecisive .69
Dutiful: Ingratiating .67
Dutiful: Conforming .54

8
 Technical Supplement

These data provided initial support for the subscale structure of the HDS. Five subscales loaded on more
than one factor, possibly due to the factors being constrained to be independent from one another via the
Varimax rotation.

The subscales with the highest loadings on factor I are Easily Disappointed, Unsocial, Mistrusting,
Irritated, and Cynical. The factor is also defined by significant loadings for the Introverted, Volatile, No
Direction, Grudges, and Avoidant subscales. Moderate loadings on this factor are also seen for the
Tough, Unappreciated, and Fear ful subscales; Unassertive and Passive Aggressive subscales also
load on factor I, with cross-loadings on factor III. Overall, this factor describes a syndrome of emotional
volatility, mistrust, excess caution, and aloof and passive aggressive behavior. Together, these loadings
support the underlying factor described by Horney (1950) as “moving away from people” and managing
insecurities by avoiding connections with others.

The subscales with the highest loadings on factor II are Impulsive, Self-Display, Public Confidence,
Fantasized Talent, and Manipulative. This factor is also defined by substantial loadings for the Creative
Thinking, Risky, Eccentric, and Special Sensitivity subscales. Entitled, Overconfidence, and Distractible
subscales also load moderately on factor II, with cross-loadings for Overconfidence and Distractible on
factor IV. Overall, this factor describes a dysfunctional disposition of arrogance, manipulation, attention-
seeking, and odd and eccentric behavior. Together, these loadings support the underlying factor described
by Horney (1950) as “moving against people” by dominating, manipulating, and intimidating others as a
means of managing self-doubt.

For factor III, the Indecisive and Ingratiating subscales show the highest loadings, with a significant loading
also noted for the Conforming subscale. The Unassertive, Fearful, and Passive Aggressive subscales from
factor I also show cross-loadings on this factor. Overall, this factor describes a dysfunctional disposition
of dependent and submissive behavior. These loadings support part of the underlying factor described by
Horney (1950) as “moving toward people” by managing insecurities by building alliances.

The subscales with the highest loadings on factor IV are Standards, Perfectionistic, and Organized.
The Overconfidence and Distractible subscales from factor II cross-load on this factor, with a negative
cross-loading on factor IV for Distractible. Overall, this factor describes a dysfunctional disposition of
meticulousness, perfectionism, and orderly and hyper-focused behavior. These loadings also support the
underlying “moving toward people” factor, or managing insecurities by minimizing the threat of criticism.

Procrustes Analysis

A different approach to factor analysis often used in cross-cultural psychology is Procrustes rotation
(Schönemann, 1966). With this analysis, factor loadings for one assessment are compared against the
factor loadings for another assessment, and congruence coefficients are computed to determine the degree
of similarity between the two assessments. Using an accepted rule of thumb, we can evaluate congruence
coefficients to determine whether the two assessments are functionally equivalent. Although some (McCrae,
Zonderman, Costa, & Bond, 1996; Mulaik, 1970) have argued that a coefficient of .90 is required for
acceptable congruence, others (Chan, Leung, Chan & Yung, 1999; Lorenzo-Seva & ten Berge, 2006) have
indicated that coefficients as low as .85 are indicative of “fair similarity.” From this, we can extrapolate that
congruence coefficients between .85 and .89 are acceptable, with values at or above .90 preferred.

9
 Technical Supplement

To verify the functional equivalence of the new form of the HDS against the HDS currently in use, we
conducted Procrustes analyses using 2,524 cases of data for the new HDS form, comparing the current
and new forms of the HDS to the HDS normative dataset. All data were collected from working adults.
Using scale-level HDS data, the first step in performing these analyses was to conduct a maximum
likelihood extraction of four factors consistent with that performed on the original HDS data. We then
rotated the factor loadings for the new HDS form to the matrix for the HDS currently in use. These
analyses yielded congruence coefficients for each scale, each factor, and the overall assessment
as seen in Table 3. The overall congruence coefficient was .95, indicating that the new form of the
HDS demonstrates good structural equivalence with the current form of the HDS. To provide a richer
interpretation of the results, we also looked to the factor and scale congruence coefficients. Congruence
coefficients for the four factors were .97, .98, .93, and .75 for Moving Away, Moving Against, Diligent, and
Dutiful factors, respectively. Because all but one of these coefficients is above the .90 threshold, we can
conclude that the bulk of the factor structure of the new HDS form is congruent with that of the current
form of the HDS.

Of the 11 HDS scales, 10 had congruence coefficients of .90 or greater, indicating that the new form of
the HDS demonstrates structural equivalence with the current HDS at the scale level. The congruence
coefficient for one scale (Dutiful) fell below our .90 threshold, but at .82, it can still be considered
indicative of fair similarity (Lorenzo-Seva & ten Berge, 2006). Overall, our findings suggest that the new
form of the HDS is structurally congruent with the current HDS, with results consistent with those found
when comparing the original English HDS against translated forms of the assessment.

Table 3. Procrustes Analysis of New HDS to HDS Currently in Use

Congruence Coefficient
Variable
Current HDS Form New HDS Form
Overall .98 .95
Moving Away .99 .97
Excitable 1.00 .90
Skeptical .99 .96
Cautious 1.00 .98
Reserved 1.00 .94
Leisurely .99 .97
Moving Against 1.00 .98
Bold .99 .98
Mischievous 1.00 .98
Colorful .99 .97
Imaginative 1.00 .97
Diligent Factor .90 .93
Diligent .97 .98
Dutiful Factor .98 .75
Dutiful .87 .82

10
 Technical Supplement

HDS Scale and SUBSCALE Distributions and Reliability

Table 4 presents the number of items in each HDS subscale and scale, descriptive statistics (i.e., means,
standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis), internal consistency reliability, average inter-item correlations,
and standard errors of measurement.

Skewness refers to departure from symmetry in a score distribution. When a distribution is normal and
symmetrical, skewness values are around zero. Positive skewness values indicate that most scores bunch
at the bottom end of a distribution, and negative skewness values indicate that most scores bunch on
the top end of a distribution. Skewness values greater than +1.0 or less than -1.0 generally indicate a
significant departure from symmetry.

Kurtosis refers to how peaked or flat a score distribution is relative to the normal distribution. When
scores are normally distributed, kurtosis values will be around zero. When the distribution is sharper
than the normal distribution, kurtosis values will be positive. When the distribution is broader than the
normal distribution, kurtosis values will be negative. Kurtosis values of more than twice the standard error
indicate a significant departure from the normal distribution.

Internal consistency reliability is an estimate of how well all the items of a subscale or scale estimate
a common attribute. If all the items of a subscale or scale measure the same construct, internal
consistency reliability will be high. However, if the items of a subscale or scale measure different things,
internal consistency will be lower.

As a second way of examining internal consistency, we also reviewed correlations between items for each
subscale and scale (DeVellis, 1991). If a group of items measures a single attribute, items in the scale
should be positively correlated. Average inter-item correlations provide information about how strongly
items in the subscale or scale hang together. Clark and Watson (1995) suggest that average inter-item
correlations be at least .15, although other rules of thumb advocate lower levels depending on the
heterogeneity of the construct.

We also provide two estimates for the standard error of measurement for each HDS scale and subscale. If
one person were to complete the HDS repeatedly, the standard deviation of his/her repeated test scores
is denoted as the standard error of measurement. We compute the standard error of measurement based
on both observed scores and true score estimates (Dudek, 1979).

To examine the distributions and reliabilities for HDS subscales and scales, we administered the new form
of the HDS to 2,718 Hogan participants. This sample included business development groups, university
classroom participants, and public and private workshops with working adults. On average, participants
were 25.53 years of age (SD = 11.51), and the sample included 1,235 males and 1,048 females (435
did not indicate their sex). Based on the data from this sample, we computed descriptive statistics,
reliability estimates, and standard errors that appear in Table 4.

11
 Technical Supplement

Table 4. Classical Scale and Subscale Statistics for the HDS

Scale Reliability Average Inter-
Items Mean SD Skew Kurtosis SEM1 SEM3
Subscale (α) Item Correlation
Excitable 14 5.30 3.15 0.41 -0.55 .74 .17 1.61 2.12
Volatile 5 1.83 1.39 0.51 -0.63 .54 .19 0.94 1.17
Easily Disappointed 5 1.85 1.56 0.50 -0.84 .67 .29 0.90 1.16
No Direction 4 1.65 1.24 0.40 -0.79 .56 .25 0.82 1.03
Skeptical 14 5.96 3.10 0.37 -0.55 .75 .17 1.55 2.05
Cynical 5 2.12 1.36 0.54 -0.51 .60 .23 0.86 1.09
Mistrusting 4 1.73 1.24 0.17 -0.98 .57 .25 0.81 1.02
Grudges 5 2.15 1.47 0.39 -0.80 .59 .22 0.94 1.19
Cautious 14 5.76 3.23 0.34 -0.69 .77 .19 1.55 2.06
Avoidant 4 1.29 1.14 0.59 -0.52 .50 .20 0.81 0.99
Fearful 5 1.66 1.49 0.58 -0.68 .64 .26 0.89 1.14
Unassertive 5 2.85 1.42 -0.06 -1.05 .57 .20 0.93 1.17
Reserved 14 5.16 3.00 0.51 -0.41 .72 .16 1.59 2.08
Introverted 4 1.83 1.09 0.23 -0.65 .42 .15 0.83 0.99
Unsocial 5 1.74 1.47 0.52 -0.73 .63 .25 0.89 1.14
Tough 5 1.63 1.41 0.67 -0.46 .58 .22 0.91 1.15
Leisurely 14 5.49 2.75 0.25 -0.40 .64 .11 1.65 2.11
Passive Aggressive 5 2.21 1.27 0.04 -0.70 .35 .09 1.02 1.19
Unappreciated 5 1.67 1.33 0.51 -0.57 .51 .17 0.93 1.14
Irritated 4 1.64 1.22 0.25 -0.88 .54 .22 0.83 1.03
Bold 14 7.65 3.05 -0.10 -0.63 .72 .15 1.61 2.12
Entitled 5 2.64 1.32 -0.13 -0.69 .47 .15 0.96 1.17
Overconfidence 4 1.78 1.30 0.22 -1.04 .60 .27 0.82 1.04
Fantasized Talent 5 3.27 1.41 -0.44 -0.72 .58 .22 0.91 1.15
Mischievous 14 7.70 2.98 -0.12 -0.67 .68 .13 1.69 2.18
Risky 5 2.83 1.51 -0.21 -0.98 .59 .22 0.97 1.22
Impulsive 4 2.13 1.25 -0.05 -1.02 .50 .20 0.88 1.08
Manipulative 5 2.78 1.22 -0.11 -0.58 .34 .09 0.99 1.15
Colorful 14 6.44 2.98 0.18 -0.54 .68 .13 1.69 2.18
Public Confidence 5 2.12 1.51 0.29 -0.89 .61 .24 0.94 1.20
Distractible 4 2.12 1.10 -0.19 -0.45 .33 .11 0.90 1.04
Self-Display 5 2.24 1.42 0.22 -0.84 .54 .19 0.96 1.20
Imaginative 14 7.34 3.17 -0.01 -0.73 .75 .17 1.59 2.10
Eccentric 4 1.50 1.27 0.50 -0.80 .60 .27 0.80 1.02
Special Sensitivity 5 3.52 1.37 -0.66 -0.48 .60 .23 0.87 1.10
Creative Thinking 5 2.39 1.55 0.05 -1.07 .63 .26 0.94 1.20
Diligent 14 9.37 2.87 -0.57 -0.19 .71 .16 1.55 2.02
Standards 5 3.67 1.04 -0.86 0.79 .35 .13 0.84 0.97
Perfectionistic 5 3.30 1.37 -0.50 -0.65 .56 .20 0.91 1.14
Organized 4 2.42 1.37 -0.41 -1.10 .66 .33 0.80 1.03
Dutiful 14 8.69 2.73 -0.48 -0.19 .63 .11 1.66 2.12
Indecisive 4 2.69 1.20 -0.58 -0.68 .57 .25 0.79 0.99
Ingratiating 5 3.15 1.25 -0.42 -0.43 .35 .10 1.01 1.17
Conforming 5 2.93 1.28 -0.25 -0.60 .43 .13 0.97 1.16
Note: N = 2,718; Items = Number of items in subscale/scale; SD = Standard Deviation; Skew = Skewness statistic; Kurtosis =
Kurtosis statistic; SEM1 = Standard error of measurement to be applied to the estimated true score for an individual given their
observed score; SEM3 = Standard error of measurement to be applied to the observed score for an individual.

12
 Technical Supplement

Descriptive statistics show that distributions for HDS scales and subscales are relatively normal. Mean
scale scores range from 5.16 (Reserved) to 9.37 (Diligent), with standard deviations between 2.73
(Dutiful) and 3.23 (Cautious). For subscales, average scores range from 1.29 (Cautious, Avoidant) to 3.67
(Diligent, Standards), with standard deviations between 1.04 (Diligent, Standards) and 1.56 (Excitable,
Easily Disappointed). Skewness statistics indicate that score distributions are symmetrical, ranging
from -0.57 (Diligent) to 0.51 (Reserved) at the scale level, with subscale-level statistics between -0.86
(Diligent, Standards) and 0.67 (Reserved, Tough). Likewise, kurtosis statistics indicate that HDS scales
and subscales are not abnormally peaked for flat, ranging from -0.73 (Imaginative) to -0.19 (Diligent and
Dutiful) at the scale level, with subscale-level statistics between -1.10 (Diligent, Organized) and 0.79
(Diligent, Standards).

Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimates illustrate that HDS scales and subscales are internally consistent,
ranging from .63 (Dutiful) to .77 (Cautious) with an average reliability of .71 across scales. Average
inter-item correlations range from .11 (Leisurely and Dutiful) to .19 (Cautious), averaging .15 across
scales. For subscales, reliability estimates range from .33 (Color ful, Distractible) to .67 (Excitable,
Easily Disappointed) averaging .53 across all subscales. Average inter-item correlations for HDS
subscales range from .09 (Leisurely, Passive Aggressive; Mischievous, Manipulative) to .33 (Diligent,
Organized), averaging .21 across subscales. These results indicate that responses to items for HDS
scales and subscales are consistent and conceptually related.

HDS Parallel Forms Reliability

For assessments with multiple forms, providers must supply evidence that constructs are assessed
the same way in each form and that a person’s results do not vary widely across forms. To obtain this
evidence, each form of the assessment is administered to the same sample of people, and individuals’
scores on each form are correlated. Table 5 presents these results. Higher correlations indicate that
scores are consistent across forms; lower correlations reflect inconsistencies that may signal problems
with construct measurement.

For comparison, Table 5 also presents test-retest reliability for the HDS based on a sample of individuals
who completed the current form of the HDS more than once over an interval of three months or less. This
interval represents the most typical interval for re-testing in an organization. By comparing test-retest
reliabilities of the current HDS against parallel forms reliabilities across HDS forms, one can determine
how consistent scale scores are likely to be across forms of the HDS.

Table 5. HDS Test-Retest and Parallel Forms Reliability

Scale Test-Retest Reliability Parallel Forms Reliability
Excitable .71 .85
Skeptical .67 .89
Cautious .75 .90
Reserved .74 .87
Leisurely .64 .93
Bold .67 .91
Mischievous .70 .89
Colorful .71 .84
Imaginative .75 .63
Diligent .72 .97
Dutiful .66 .73
Note: N = 2,718; Test-Retest Reliability and Parallel Forms Reliability assessed using Pearson correlations.

13
 Technical Supplement

Parallel forms reliabilities for the HDS range from .63 (Imaginative) to .97 (Diligent), averaging .86 across
scales. Some results are very high (i.e., .97 for Diligent) because scale content is nearly identical across
forms. By comparison, test-retest reliabilities for the current HDS form range from .64 (Leisurely) to .75
(Cautious and Imaginative), averaging .70 across scales. These results reflect a high degree of score
stability between HDS forms. Because scale scores are as consistent across HDS forms as they are
across time for the current HDS form, the new form can be considered parallel and equivalent to prior
HDS forms.

14
 Technical Supplement

Construct Validity of the New HDS Form

Our view of validity (cf. R. Hogan & Hogan, 2009) is that the meaning of a personality scale must be
discovered in the pattern of its external correlates (Hogan & Nicholson, 1988). The job of assessment is
to predict outcomes, and the more significant the outcomes predicted, the more useful the assessment.
We designed the new form of the HDS to predict outcomes, with each scale designed to assess a theme
of interpersonal behavior that usually has negative implications for a person’s ability to build relationships
and establish a career. Thus, the validity of the new form of the HDS depends on having robust external
correlates that make sense given our theory of each scale’s content (cf. R. Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts,
1996).

Correlations with Other Assessments

In the following sections, we review the external correlates for each HDS scale. Specifically, we provide
correlation tables between the new form of the HDS and various personality measures as well as values/
needs/motives/interest inventories. Results from eight tables are presented in this section; additional
tables are available that are contained as part of Goldberg’s (2008) Eugene-Springfield Community
Sample.

Samples and Instruments

Because these analyses examine correlations between the new form of the HDS and other personality
and values/needs/motives/interest assessments, the sample was limited to participants who completed
both instruments. For each assessment examined, we report sample size and demographic (i.e., age, sex)
information.

To verify that the different forms of the HDS measure the same constructs, we also compared correlations
reported in these tables to similar content reported in Chapter 3 of the Hogan Development Survey
manual (R. Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Across scales from these eight personality and values/needs/
motives/interest assessments, average differences in scale-to-scale correlates across HDS forms range
from -.02 (Excitable, Cautious, Dutiful) to .03 (Colorful), with an average difference of .00 across scales.
Although correlations between certain scales may be slightly higher or lower across forms of the HDS,
these analyses confirm that the forms of the HDS measure the same constructs.

HPI. First, we reviewed HDS correlations with the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; R. Hogan & Hogan,
2007). A total of 65 participants completed the HDS and HPI. The sample included 24 males and 40
females (1 did not indicate their sex), with ages ranging from 29 to 72 years with a mean of 48.00 years
(SD = 9.06).

CPI. Second, we reviewed HDS correlations with the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1996).
A total of 140 participants completed the HDS and CPI. The sample included 61 males and 73 females
(6 did not indicate their sex), with ages ranging from 21 to 72 years with a mean of 46.78 years (SD =
10.23).

15
 Technical Supplement

NEO PI-R. Third, we reviewed HDS correlations with the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). A total of 133
participants completed the HDS and NEO-PI-R. The sample included 60 males and 67 females (6 did not
indicate their sex), with ages ranging from 21 to 72 years with a mean of 47.08 years (SD = 10.32).

IPIP. Fourth, we reviewed HDS correlations with the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg et
al., 2006). A total of 117 participants completed the HDS and IPIP. The sample included 50 males and 61
females (6 did not indicate their sex), with ages ranging from 22 to 69 years with a mean of 46.49 years
(SD = 9.74).

16PF. Fifth, we reviewed HDS correlations with the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF; Conn
& Rieke, 1994; Russell & Karol, 2002). A total of 142 participants completed the HDS and 16PF. The
sample included 63 males and 73 females (6 did not indicate their sex), with ages ranging from 22 to 72
years with a mean of 46.25 years (SD = 9.58).

MVPI. Sixth, we reviewed HDS correlations with the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI; J.
Hogan & Hogan, 1996). A total of 51 participants completed the HDS and MVPI. The sample included 26
males and 20 females (5 did not indicate their sex), with ages ranging from 21 to 69 years with a mean of
44.52 years (SD = 10.36).

CISS. Seventh, we reviewed HDS correlations with the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (CISS; Campbell,
Hyne, & Nilsen, 1992). A total of 116 participants completed the HDS and CISS. The sample included 53
males and 59 females (4 did not indicate their sex), with ages ranging from 21 to 72 years with a mean of
46.18 years (SD = 9.68).

JPI-R. Eighth, we reviewed HDS correlations with the Jackson Personality Inventory - Revised (JPI-R;
Jackson, 1994). A total of 157 participants completed the HDS and JPI-R. The sample included 72 males
and 79 females (6 did not indicate their sex), with ages ranging from 21 to 72 years with a mean of 46.36
years (SD = 9.77).

16
 Technical Supplement

Table 6. Correlations Between HDS Scales and HPI Scales

Scale EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
ADJ -.57** -.55** -.21 -.15 -.28* .07 -.38** -.32* -.26* -.16 -.05
AMB -.28* -.19 -.60** -.26* -.24 .46** .15 .27* .20 .13 -.27*
SOC .16 .09 -.22 -.23 .21 .32** .53** .70** .54** .10 .00
INP -.07 -.29* -.14 -.37** -.04 .10 .01 .11 -.04 .11 .34**
PRU -.32* -.41** -.03 -.01 -.23 -.05 -.55** -.46** -.36** .15 .06
INQ -.01 .06 -.09 -.06 .31* .14 .26* .48** .61** .03 -.15
LRN .13 .12 -.08 .06 .06 .19 .07 .22 .35** .10 -.24
Note. N = 65; EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL = Bold; MIS =
Mischievous; COL = Colorful; IMA = Imaginative; DIL = Diligent; DUT = Dutiful; ADJ = Adjustment; AMB = Ambition; SOC =
Sociability; INP = Interpersonal Sensitivity; PRU = Prudence; INQ = Inquisitive; LRN = Learning Approach; * = Correlation is
significant at .05 level; ** = Correlation is significant at .01 level.

Table 7. Correlations Between HDS Scales and CPI Scales

Scale EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Dominance -.31** -.17* -.57** -.23** -.14 .44** .29** .44** .24** .03 -.19*
Capacity for Status -.35** -.31** -.40** -.33** -.24** .09 .12 .38** .05 -.17* -.12
Sociability -.29** -.20* -.50** -.42** -.21* .20* .26** .48** .13 -.05 -.03
Social Presence -.32** -.20* -.47** -.28** -.33** .09 .26** .38** .06 -.22** -.22**
Self-Acceptance -.24** -.14 -.63** -.28** -.27** .28** .37** .55** .23** -.06 -.21*
Independence -.35** -.22** -.56** -.07 -.32** .26** .14 .23** .14 -.11 -.39**
Empathy -.38** -.29** -.45** -.40** -.31** .04 .19* .41** .04 -.29** -.17*
Responsibility -.49** -.55** -.11 -.31** -.20* .02 -.33** .01 -.13 -.10 .03
Socialization -.38** -.42** .06 -.19* -.02 .13 -.25** -.16 -.26** .04 .12
Self-Control -.48** -.50** -.04 -.12 -.24** -.13 -.41** -.33** -.27** -.12 .00
Good Impression -.55** -.53** -.19* -.19* -.29** -.09 -.28** -.19* -.22** -.11 .01
Communality -.15 -.11 -.19* -.20* -.04 .19* -.02 .08 .02 .13 -.01
Well-Being -.60** -.56** -.37** -.22** -.41** -.01 -.18* -.01 -.12 -.20* -.18*
Tolerance -.48** -.60** -.12 -.31** -.33** -.25** -.40** -.06 -.30** -.27** -.04
Achievement via
-.46** -.44** -.19* -.20* -.13 .25** -.17* .05 -.07 .11 .03
Conformance
Achievement via
-.43** -.46** -.27** -.19* -.34** -.16 -.19* .12 -.03 -.20* -.21*
Independence
Intellectual
-.45** -.43** -.37** -.21* -.39** -.01 -.08 .22** -.05 -.22** -.27**
Efficiency
Psychological-
-.35** -.40** -.15 -.03 -.17* -.05 -.11 .04 .05 -.21* -.32**
Mindedness
Flexibility -.12 -.22** -.15 -.14 -.27** -.22* .00 .22** -.01 -.45** -.28**
Femininity/
.05 -.07 .40** -.17* .04 -.31** -.45** -.23** -.33** .03 .24**
Masculinity
Externality/
.15 -.01 .51** .17* .07 -.41** -.44** -.59** -.28** -.01 .19*
Internality
Norm-Doubting/
-.29** -.17* -.04 -.12 .09 .28** -.11 -.14 -.10 .27** .17*
Norm-Favoring
Ego-Integration -.56** -.60** -.28** -.30** -.43** -.17* -.32** .02 -.18* -.28** -.16
Note. N = 140; EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL = Bold; MIS =
Mischievous; COL = Colorful; IMA = Imaginative; DIL = Diligent; DUT = Dutiful; * = Correlation is significant at .05 level; ** =
Correlation is significant at .01 level.

17
 Technical Supplement

Table 8. Correlations Between HDS Scales and NEO PI-R Scales/Facets

Scale EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Neuroticism .61 **
.48 **
.44 **
.16 .33 **
-.09 .11 .07 .09 .13 .17*
Anxiety .50** .33** .43** .09 .29** -.10 .04 .00 .06 .18* .21*
Angry Hostility .54 **
.56 **
.09 .22 *
.28 **
.15 .21 *
.13 .23 **
.26 **
-.05
Depression .58 **
.43 **
.36 **
.20 *
.30 **
-.10 .12 .06 .10 .19 *
.09
Self-Consciousness .42** .31** .59** .17* .32** -.18* -.02 -.16 -.03 .04 .25**
Impulsiveness .36** .33** .06 -.04 .08 .08 .27** .34** .15 -.10 .09
Vulnerability .31 **
.18 *
.45 **
.06 .18 *
-.26 **
-.14 -.05 -.09 -.03 .18*
Extraversion -.20 *
-.08 -.44 **
-.48 **
-.17 .33 **
.30 **
.41 **
.14 .04 .07
Warmth -.16 -.18 *
-.27 **
-.57 **
-.11 .10 .07 .30 **
.07 -.07 .20*
Gregariousness -.20* -.19* -.25** -.53** -.15 .14 .14 .29** -.07 .00 .13
Assertiveness -.09 -.08 -.53 **
-.17 *
-.02 .36 **
.24 **
.37 **
.21 *
.09 -.14
Activity -.11 -.04 -.26 **
-.09 -.09 .32 **
.17 *
.23 **
.20 *
.13 -.07
Excitement-Seeking .12 .27** -.13 -.06 .00 .24** .45** .21* .15 .09 .09
Positive Emotions -.29 **
-.08 -.21 *
-.36 **
-.25 **
.08 .05 .12 -.03 -.09 .07
Openness .00 .00 -.13 -.23** -.06 .01 .19* .35** .30** -.10 -.17*
Fantasy .03 .02 -.13 -.09 -.11 -.04 .25** .36** .22* -.26** -.15
Aesthetics .01 .01 .05 -.28 **
-.06 -.07 -.01 .16 .16 -.01 .02
Feelings .10 .18* -.03 -.28** -.01 .07 .12 .24** .24** .11 .02
Actions -.04 -.05 -.21 *
-.25 **
-.08 .09 .22 *
.30 **
.26 **
-.12 -.21*
Ideas -.02 .01 -.21* .09 .02 .14 .20* .25** .34** .10 -.23**
Values -.08 -.14 -.04 -.13 -.01 -.09 .01 .11 .04 -.16 -.16
Agreeableness -.32 **
-.44 **
.18 *
-.24 **
-.05 -.32 **
-.42 **
-.26 **
-.34 **
-.11 .27**
Trust -.37** -.49** -.20* -.29** -.20* -.06 -.30** .03 -.19* -.21* .05
Straight-Forwardness -.30 **
-.29 **
.08 -.15 -.08 -.30 **
-.42 **
-.29 **
-.32 **
.00 .05
Altruism -.26 **
-.25 **
.00 -.28 **
-.09 -.01 -.12 -.06 -.03 -.04 .21*
Compliance -.38** -.46** .23** -.17 -.04 -.23** -.33** -.19* -.29** -.15 .28**
Modesty .10 -.02 .31 **
.05 .08 -.34 **
-.19 *
-.28 **
-.25 **
-.01 .25**
Tender-Mindedness -.02 -.19* .26** -.12 .14 -.25** -.22** -.22* -.19* -.02 .20*
Conscientiousness -.24 **
-.11 -.11 .00 -.02 .26 **
-.10 -.21 *
.04 .54 **
.00
Competence -.23 **
-.15 -.22 *
.06 -.06 .29 **
.00 -.09 .14 .27 **
-.11
Order -.09 .02 .08 -.02 -.03 .10 -.17 -.26** -.09 .59** .14
Dutifulness -.24 **
-.14 -.04 .04 -.02 .05 -.23 **
-.24 **
-.04 .35 **
-.03
Achievement Striving -.02 .07 -.13 .01 .15 .44 **
.25 **
.07 .32 **
.45 **
.00
Self-Discipline -.25** -.11 -.21* -.04 -.15 .17 -.14 -.18* -.05 .34** -.09
Deliberation -.28** -.21* .02 -.05 .02 .04 -.19* -.25** -.10 .30** .03
Note. N = 133; EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL = Bold; MIS =
Mischievous; COL = Colorful; IMA = Imaginative; DIL = Diligent; DUT = Dutiful; * = Correlation is significant at .05 level; ** =
Correlation is significant at .01 level.

18
 Technical Supplement

Table 9. Correlations Between HDS Scales and IPIP Big 5 20-Item Scales
Scale EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
EXT -.33 **
-.22 *
-.57 **
-.49 **
-.19 *
.20 *
.28**
.61 **
.20 *
-.14 -.12
AGR -.22* -.24** -.03 -.49** -.16 -.01 -.06 .16 -.03 -.09 .23*
CON -.06 .00 -.15 -.11 .00 .29** -.07 -.10 -.02 .63** .06
EMS -.53 **
-.52 **
-.31 **
-.18 -.31 **
.04 -.05 -.01 -.20 *
-.34** -.11
I/I -.12 -.08 -.34** -.16 .02 .26** .25** .45** .41** .00 -.25**
Note. N = 117; EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL = Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL = Colorful;
IMA = Imaginative; DIL = Diligent; DUT = Dutiful; EXT = Extraversion; AGR = Agreeableness; CON = Conscientiousness; EMS = Emotional Stability; I/I
= Intellect/Imagination; * = Correlation is significant at .05 level; ** = Correlation is significant at .01 level.

Table 10. Correlations Between HDS Scales and 16PF Scales

Scale EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Warmth -.13 -.12 -.14 -.46** -.21* -.08 -.02 .12 -.22** -.14 .19*
Reasoning -.24** -.16 -.10 -.06 -.15 -.02 -.09 .12 .05 -.05 -.28**
Emotional Stability -.52** -.43** -.34** -.20* -.43** .15 -.02 .05 -.12 -.15 -.11
Dominance .08 .19* -.51** -.03 .02 .39** .36** .44** .31** .14 -.23**
Liveliness -.02 .01 -.35** -.27** -.08 .16* .30** .40** .11 .00 .04
Rule-Consciousness -.14 -.08 .01 -.15 -.08 .08 -.14 -.09 -.12 .27** .19*
Social-Boldness -.35** -.26** -.59** -.49** -.12 .22** .16 .45** .07 -.01 -.07
Sensitivity -.12 -.10 .13 -.23** -.12 -.27** -.26** .02 -.17* -.16 -.02
Vigilance .53** .59** .21* .37** .37** .07 .21* -.14 .16* .26** .08
Abstractedness .18* .11 .00 .10 .14 -.06 .25** .25** .30** -.26** -.18*
Privateness .13 .10 .31** .43** .25** .07 .02 -.32** .02 .18* -.06
Apprehension .43** .32** .43** .07 .39** -.05 -.01 -.16* .01 .35** .19*
Openness to Change -.03 .00 -.29** -.17* -.05 .09 .15 .33** .36** -.14 -.24**
Self-Reliance .20* .25** .13 .47** .23** .05 -.02 -.16 .12 .11 -.16
Perfectionism .06 .10 -.04 -.09 .09 .30** -.05 -.09 .04 .68** .06
Tension .32** .35** .19* .21* .23** .02 .04 -.03 .14 .21* -.05
Note. N = 142; EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL = Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL = Colorful;
IMA = Imaginative; DIL = Diligent; DUT = Dutiful; * = Correlation is significant at .05 level; ** = Correlation is significant at .01 level.

Table 11. Correlations Between HDS Scales and MVPI Scales

Scale EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
AES .06 .10 .10 -.14 .01 -.26 .20 .32* .20 -.24 .04
AFF -.19 -.18 -.32* -.63** -.02 .36** .09 .44** .08 .04 .10
ALT -.06 -.10 .06 -.35 *
.07 .20 .04 .07 .07 .06 .44**
COM .31* .40** -.25 .08 .27 .47** .38** .22 .30* .48** .19
HED .19 .33 *
-.14 -.21 .23 .09 .43 **
.33*
.23 -.06 .02
POW .10 .31* -.27 .10 .23 .53** .56** .39** .42** .21 .10
REC .15 .22 -.03 -.19 .27 .53** .24 .39** .25 .25 .22
SCI .07 .16 -.06 .19 .02 .08 .22 .03 .20 .11 -.04
SEC .16 .08 .23 .12 .30* .18 -.16 -.04 -.09 .44** .32*
TRA -.11 -.18 .01 -.12 -.04 .26 -.02 .04 .06 .19 .28*
Note. N = 51; EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL = Bold; MIS = Mischievous; COL = Colorful; IMA
= Imaginative; DIL = Diligent; DUT = Dutiful; AES = Aesthetics; AFF = Affiliation; ALT = Altruism; COM = Commercial; HED = Hedonism; POW = Power;
REC = Recognition; SCI = Science; SEC = Security; TRA = Tradition; * = Correlation is significant at .05 level; ** = Correlation is significant at .01 level.

19
 Technical Supplement

Table 12. Correlations Between HDS Scales and CISS Interest and Skill Scales
CISS Interest Scales EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Influencing -.12 -.03 -.31 **
-.01 .09 .30**
.33**
.24 **
.16 .04 -.04
Organizing .11 .12 -.01 .15 .20* .25** .14 -.14 .01 .23* -.04
Helping -.09 -.12 .00 -.10 -.03 .02 -.08 -.01 -.05 -.03 .09
Creating -.22 *
-.09 -.11 -.29 **
-.12 -.09 -.17 .13 -.05 -.05 -.07
Analyzing .08 .03 -.08 .21* .03 .12 .17 .00 .21* .11 -.16
Producing .03 .15 -.15 .15 -.02 .10 .07 -.01 .20 *
.11 -.10
Adventuring .03 -.02 -.23* .12 .00 .16 .31** .00 .07 .02 -.08
CISS Skill Scales
Influencing -.19* .00 -.39** -.07 .01 .37** .33** .39** .29** .02 -.13
Organizing .01 .13 -.14 .12 .21* .39** .16 .01 .18* .34** -.16
Helping -.16 -.05 -.22 *
-.13 -.05 .13 -.01 .21 *
.15 -.02 -.08
Creating -.15 .00 -.21* -.16 .00 .28** .03 .30** .27** .16 -.11
Analyzing -.02 .05 -.19 *
.17 .10 .25 **
.15 .06 .29 **
.19 *
-.27**
Producing -.04 .14 -.23 *
.11 .06 .21 *
.19 *
.13 .31 **
.22 *
-.20*
Adventuring -.01 .09 -.29** .10 -.04 .21* .28** .14 .29** .03 -.14
Note. N = 116; EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL = Bold; MIS =
Mischievous; COL = Colorful; IMA = Imaginative; DIL = Diligent; DUT = Dutiful; * = Correlation is significant at .05 level; ** =
Correlation is significant at .01 level.

Table 13. Correlations Between HDS Scales and JPI-R Scales

Scale EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Analytical Cluster
Complexity -.03 -.05 -.08 -.06 .00 .04 .14 .19* .22** -.03 -.28**
Breadth of
-.09 -.07 -.17* -.21** .10 .14 .21** .26** .31** .05 -.09
Interest
Innovation .05 .11 -.29** -.07 .10 .33** .40** .45** .59** .03 -.20**
Tolerance -.19* -.29** -.23** -.20* -.14 -.12 .09 .19* .02 -.16* -.15
Emotional Cluster
Empathy .13 .08 .13 -.33** .15 .09 -.04 .05 .00 .07 .24**
Anxiety .50** .39** .37** .11 .39** -.03 .07 .02 .08 .21** .07
Cooperative .20* .06 .30** -.16* .24** .09 .00 .00 -.11 .14 .37**
Extroverted Cluster
Sociability -.11 -.15 -.24** -.55** -.04 .17* .17* .31** .01 -.01 .12
Social
-.23** -.09 -.67** -.40** -.18* .39** .27** .54** .24** .03 -.13
Confidence
Energy Level -.25** -.15 -.38** -.17* -.11 .33** .18* .19* .16* .17* -.14
Opportunistic Cluster
Social Astuteness .13 .06 -.03 -.11 .07 .17* .28** .18* .18* .05 .03
Risk Taking .16* .17* -.27** .11 .04 .26** .54** .30** .29** -.06 -.19*
Dependable Cluster
Organization -.10 .01 .00 -.01 .00 .20* -.12 -.19* -.05 .52** .05
Traditional Values .01 .10 .07 -.01 -.01 .11 -.04 -.08 -.04 .18* .28**
Responsibility -.15 -.20* -.09 -.29** -.09 .14 -.10 .01 .00 .11 .36**
Note. N = 157; EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL = Bold; MIS =
Mischievous; COL = Colorful; IMA = Imaginative; DIL = Diligent; DUT = Dutiful; * = Correlation is significant at .05 level; ** =
Correlation is significant at .01 level.

20
 Technical Supplement

Results of Scale-to-Scale Correlates

Excitable. The Excitable scale predicts behaviors ranging from calmness and emotional stability to
moodiness and emotional volatility. Excitable people are enthusiastic about new relationships or projects
only to discover flaws and become discouraged and upset. Consequently, the highly Excitable person will
tend to reject that which he or she formerly idealized.

Table 6 indicates that the Excitable scale correlates most negatively (-.57) with HPI Adjustment, a measure
of emotional stability. Table 7 shows strong correlations with the CPI Well-Being, Ego-Integration, and Good
Impression scales at magnitudes greater than -.50. Table 8 presents correlations with the NEO PI-R, where
one can see high correlations with Neuroticism (.61) and its facets. Tables 9 and 10 show nearly identical
results for the IPIP (-.53) and 16PF Emotional Stability (-.52) scales, respectively. Table 11 indicates a
positive relationship with the MVPI Commercial scale and a negative relationship with the Affiliation scale
with correlations of .31 and -.19, respectively. Table 12 shows correlations with the CISS interest and skill
scales, with negative relations with Creating Interests (-.22) and Influencing Skills (-.19). Table 13 presents
correlations with the JPI-R scales, with the highest correlation with the Anxiety scale (.50) in the Emotional
Cluster.

Skeptical. The Skeptical scale predicts behaviors ranging from trust and optimism to being fault-finding
and mistrustful. Skeptical people believe that the world is full of people who will trick and deceive them,
steal from them, or otherwise harm them. As a result, they are suspicious and alert for signs of betrayal
in friends, family, coworkers, and employers.

Table 6 indicates that the Skeptical scale correlates most negatively (-.55) with HPI Adjustment, with
other strong correlations for Prudence (-.41) and Interpersonal Sensitivity (-.29). Table 7 shows that
the highest correlations with CPI scales are for Tolerance and Ego-Integration (-.60), with correlations
for Well-Being, Responsibility, Good Impression, and Self-Control at or beyond -.50. Table 8 presents
correlations with the NEO PI-R, with strong negative correlations with Agreeableness (-.44) and facets of
Trust (-.49) and Compliance (-.46), and strong positive correlations with Neuroticism (.48) and facets of
Angry Hostility (.56) and Depression (.43). Table 9 shows strong correlates with IPIP Emotional Stability
(-.52), Agreeableness (-.24), and Extraversion (-.22) scales. Table 10 presents correlations with the 16PF,
with notable relationships with Vigilance (.59) and Emotional Stability (-.43). Table 11 shows strong
relationships with the MVPI Commercial (.40), Hedonism (.33), and Power (.31) scales. Table 12 suggests
no strong relations with self-reported interests or skills. Table 13 presents correlations with the JPI-R
scales, with positive correlations with Anxiety (.39) and Risk-Taking (.17) scales, and negative correlations
with Tolerance (-.29) and Responsibility (-.20).

Cautious. The Cautious scale predicts behaviors ranging from confidence and assertiveness to a
reluctance to try new things. Cautious people doubt their own abilities and are concerned about making
mistakes and being criticized. At work, such people will adhere to rules and resist innovation out of a
concern for making errors.

Table 6 indicates that the Cautious scale correlates most negatively (-.60) with HPI Ambition. Table 7
shows correlations of at least -.50 with CPI Self-Acceptance, Dominance, Independence, and Sociability
scales, as well as a positive correlation (.51) with CPI Externality/Internality, measuring a range from
involvement to detachment. Table 8 presents correlations with the NEO PI-R, with strong correlations with

21
 Technical Supplement

Self Consciousness (.59) and Assertiveness (-.53). Table 9 illustrates a negative pattern of correlations
with IPIP scales, most notably Extraversion (-.57). The 16PF correlations in Table 10 follow these patterns
with correlations with Social Boldness (-.59), Dominance (-.51), and Apprehension (.43). Table 11 shows
strong correlations with MVPI Affiliation (-.32), Commercial (-.25), and Security (.23). Table 12 indicates a
lack of relationships with interests or skills in influencing others or adventurous or risky activities. Table
13 illustrates a negative pattern of correlations with the JPI-R Extroverted Cluster and a strong positive
correlation for Anxiety (.37).

Reserved. The Reserved scale predicts behaviors ranging from sensitivity to seeming unconcerned about
people. Reserved people seem indifferent to others’ feelings and are unaware of how others react to
them. They communicate poorly (if at all), are unrewarding to deal with, and have trouble building or
maintaining a team.

Table 6 indicates that the Reserved scale correlates most strongly with HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity (-.37),
Ambition (-.26), and Sociability (-.23). Table 7 indicates high correlations with CPI Sociability (-.42) and
Empathy (-.40). Table 8 shows correlations with the NEO PI-R, with strong relations with Extraversion (-.48),
Warmth (-.57), and Gregariousness (-.53) facets. Correlations with the IPIP in Table 9 show the highest
correlations for Extraversion (-.49) and Agreeableness (-.49). Results for the 16PF in Table 10 highlight
themes of Social Boldness (-.49), Warmth (-.46), Self Reliance (.47), and Privateness (.43). Table 11
illustrates correlations with the MVPI, with strong relationships with Affiliation (-.63) and Altruism (-.35).
Table 12 presents correlations with the CISS, where the strongest correlations are for Creating (-.29) and
Analyzing (.21) interests. Table 13 contains correlations with the JPI-R, with notable relationships with the
Extroverted cluster, particularly Sociability (-.55) and Social Confidence (-.40). The negative correlation with
Empathy (-.33) further indicates a lack of interest in the needs of others.

Leisurely. The Leisurely scale predicts behaviors ranging from being cooperative and cheerful to stubborn
and resentful. Such people are preoccupied with their own goals and resent being interrupted. They often
procrastinate and put off working on tasks that don’t interest them. As managers they tend to set up their
staff for failure by not telling them what they want, then criticizing them for not delivering results.

Table 6 indicates that the Leisurely scale correlates highly with HPI Inquisitive (.31) and Adjustment (-.28),
which combined with negative correlations with Ambition, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Prudence, suggest
a theme of alienation. Correlations with the CPI in Table 7 reveal negative relations with Ego-Integration
(-.43), Well-Being (-.41), Intellectual Efficiency (-.39), and Achievement via Independence (-.34). Table 8
presents correlations with the NEO PI-R, where relations with Neuroticism (.33), Self-Consciousness (.32),
and Depression (.30) are apparent. Table 9 details correlations with IPIP Emotional Stability (-.31) and
Extraversion (-.19). Table 10 provides correlations with the 16PF, with strong relationships with Emotional
Stability (-.43), Apprehension (.39), and Vigilance (.37). Table 11 shows a strong correlation with MVPI
Security (.30), suggesting a need for stability. Table 12 shows correlations with the CISS where relations
with Organizing interests (.20) and skills (.21) are seen. Table 13 contains correlations with JPI-R scales
showing the highest relations with Anxiety (.39), Cooperative (.24), and Social Confidence (-.18) scales.

Bold. The Bold scale predicts behaviors ranging from modest self-restraint to arrogant self-promotion.
Bold people are entitled, fail to recognize their failures, take more credit for success than is fair, and don’t
learn from experience. Bold people often rise rapidly in organizations, but others find them hard to work
with because they can be overbearing, demanding, and unrealistic.

22
 Technical Supplement

Table 6 shows that the Bold scale correlates highly with HPI Ambition (.46) and Sociability (.32). Table
7 shows a negative correlation with CPI Externality/Internality (-.41) and a positive correlation with
Dominance (.44). Table 8 shows correlations with NEO PI-R scales and facets, with strong correlations for
Extraversion (.33) and Agreeableness (-.32) scales, as well as significant correlations with Achievement
Striving (.44), Assertiveness (.36), Modesty (-.34), and Activity (.32) facets. Table 9 shows correlations
with IPIP Conscientiousness (.29), Intellect (.26), and Extraversion (.20) scales. Correlations with the
16PF in Table 10 indicate a strong relationship with the Dominance (.39) scale. Table 11 indicates high
correlations with MVPI Power (.53), Recognition (.53), and Commercial (.47) scales. Correlations with
the CISS in Table 12 reveal interests and skills in Influencing (.30, .37) and Organizing (.25, .39). Table
13 indicates strong correlations with the JPI-R Extroverted Cluster scales of Social Confidence (.39) and
Energy Level (.33).

Mischievous. The Mischievous scale predicts a continuum ranging from unassuming and responsible
behavior to impulsive and risky behavior. The Mischievous person is bright, witty, and engaging, sees
others as utilities to be exploited, has problems maintaining commitments, and is unconcerned about
violating expectations.

Table 6 indicates that the Mischievous scale correlates highly with HPI Prudence (-.55), Sociability (.53)
and Adjustment (-.38). Table 7 indicates strong correlations with the CPI Femininity/Masculinity (-.45),
Externality/Internality (-.44), Self-Control (-.41), and Tolerance (-.40) scales. Table 8 shows correlations
with the NEO PI-R, with positive relations with the Extraversion scale (.30) and Excitement-Seeking
facet (.45), and negative relations with the Agreeableness scale (-.42) and Straightforwardness (-.42),
Compliance (-.33), and Trust (-.30) facets. Table 9 indicates strong correlations with the IPIP Extraversion
(.28) and Intellect (.25) scales. Table 10 presents correlations with the 16PF, with high correlations with
Dominance (.36) and Liveliness (.30). Table 11 indicates strong correlations with MVPI Power (.56),
Hedonism (.43), and Commercial (.38). Table 12 presents correlations with CISS interest and skill scales,
with positive relations with interests and skills at Influencing (.33 and .33, respectively) and Adventuring
(.31 and .28, respectively). Table 13 shows correlations with the JPI-R, where correlations with Risk Taking
(.54), Innovation (.40), Social Astuteness (.28), and Social Confidence (.27) stand out.

Colorful. The Colorful scale predicts a range of behaviors from quiet self-restraint to dramatic self-
expression. People with high scores on the Colorful scale need frequent social contact and prefer to be
the center of attention. They are skilled at making dramatic entrances and exits and otherwise calling
attention to themselves. Interpersonally they are gregarious and charming, but superficial in their interest
in others.

Table 6 indicates that the Colorful scale correlates highly with HPI Sociability (.70). Correlations with the
CPI in Table 7 show strong relationships with Externality/Internality (-.59), Self-Acceptance (.55), Sociability
(.48), Dominance (.44), and Empathy (.41). Table 8 presents correlations with the NEO PI-R, with strong
relationships with the Extraversion scale (.41) and facets of Assertiveness (.37) and Warmth (.30), as well
as notable correlations with the Openness scale (.35) and Fantasy (.36) and Actions (.30) facets. Table 9
shows correlations with the IPIP scales, indicating strong relationships with Extraversion (.61) and Intellect
(.45). Correlations with the 16PF in Table 10 reflect relations with Social-Boldness (.45), Dominance (.44),
and Liveliness (.40) scales. Table 11 indicates strong correlations with MVPI Affiliation (.44), Recognition
(.39), and Power (.39) scales. Correlations with the CISS in Table 12 illustrate relations with interests
and skills in Influencing (.24 and .39, respectively). Table 13 reflects strong relationships with JPI-R Social
Confidence (.54) and Innovation (.45).

23
 Technical Supplement

Imaginative. The Imaginative scale predicts a range of behaviors from sensible to eccentric behavior.
People with high Imaginative scores tend to behave in unusual ways, but these actions are not typically
self-conscious, affected, or designed to attract attention. These people are often bright and are original in
their ideas and insights, but their ideas may be inappropriate or even disruptive.

Table 6 indicates that the Imaginative scale correlates highly with HPI Inquisitive (.61), Sociability
(.54), Prudence (-.36), and Learning Approach (.35). Table 7 indicates correlations with CPI Femininity/
Masculinity (-.33), Tolerance (-.30), Externality/Internality (-.28), Self-Control (-.27), and Socialization (-.26)
scales. Table 8 shows positive correlations with the NEO PI-R Openness scale (.30) and Ideas facet (.34),
and the Achievement Striving facet (.32) of Conscientiousness, as well as negative correlations with
the Agreeableness scale (-.34) and Straightforwardness facet (-.32). Table 9 indicates high correlations
with the IPIP Intellect (.41), Emotional Stability (-.20) and Extraversion (.20) scales. Table 10 presents
correlations with the 16PF, with strongest relationships with the Openness to Change (.36), Dominance
(.31), and Abstractedness (.30) scales. Table 11 indicates high correlations with MVPI Power (.42)
and Commercial (.30). Correlations with the CISS interest and skill scales in Table 12 show strong
relationships with skills, particularly Producing (.31), Adventuring (.29), Analyzing (.29), and Influencing
(.29). Table 13 presents correlations with the JPI-R, where strong correlations with Innovation (.59) and
Breadth of Interest (.31) are noted.

Diligent. The Diligent scale predicts a range of behaviors from a willingness to delegate to micromanaging
behavior. People with high Diligent scores are well-organized and perfectionistic. Their meticulous attention
to detail is useful and even important in many jobs, but leads to trouble prioritizing work and delegating
which deprives their subordinates of opportunities to learn.

Table 6 presents correlations with the HPI, where despite a lack of statistically significant correlations
the Diligent scale still relates positively with Prudence (.15) and negatively with Adjustment (-.16). Table 7
illustrates correlations with CPI Flexibility (-.45), Empathy (-.29), Ego-Integration (-.28), Tolerance (-.27), and
Norm-Doubting/Norm-Favoring (.27). Table 8 shows high correlations with the NEO PI-R Conscientiousness
scale (.54) and facets of Order (.59) and Achievement Striving (.45). The correlation with IPIP
Conscientiousness (.63) in Table 9 corroborates these results. Table 10 presents relations with the 16PF,
with correlations with Perfectionism (.68), Apprehension (.35), Rule-Consciousness (.27), Abstractedness
(-.26), and Vigilance (.26). Correlations with the MVPI in Table 11 illustrate strong relationships with the
Commercial (.48) and Security (.44) scales. Table 12 shows strong relationships with both interests and
skills on the CISS Organizing scale (.23 and .34, respectively). Table 13 presents correlations with the
JPI-R, where a high correlation with the Organization scale (.52) under the Dependable cluster is observed.

Dutiful. The Dutiful scale predicts a range of behaviors from independence to conformity. Dutiful people
are compliant and eager to please. Because they are so agreeable, they rarely make enemies and tend to
rise in organizations. As managers, they will be tactful and considerate but, because they are so eager to
please their bosses, they avoid standing up for their subordinates.

Table 6 presents correlations with the HPI, which indicate that the Dutiful scale is associated
with Interpersonal Sensitivity (.34) and Ambition (-.27). Table 7 shows strong correlations with CPI
Independence (-.39), Psychological-Mindedness (-.32), Flexibility (-.28), and Intellectual Efficiency (-.27).
Table 8 shows significant correlations with the NEO PI-R Compliance (.28), Agreeableness (.27), Self-
Consciousness (.25), and Modesty (.25) scales and facets. Table 9 contains correlations with the IPIP

24
 Technical Supplement

scales, with significant relationships for the Intellect (-.25) and Agreeableness (.23) scales. Table 10
presents notable correlations with the 16PF Reasoning (-.28), Openness to Change (-.24), and Dominance
(-.23) scales. Table 11 indicates strong correlations with MVPI Altruism (.44), Security (.32), and
Tradition (.28) scales. Table 12 provides correlations with the CISS interest and skill scales, with strong
relationships noted for skills in Analyzing (-.27) and Producing (-.20). Table 13 presents correlations with
the JPI-R scales, with strong relationships with Cooperativeness (.37), Responsibility (.36), Complexity
(-.28), and Traditional Values (.28).

Correlations with Others’ Descriptions

In this section, we present correlations between scale scores on the new HDS form and ratings of a
person provided by observers. These analyses provide information for evaluating construct validity of the
new HDS scales, as well as guidance for interpretation of HDS scales. We provide correlations between
HDS scales and adjective checklists and descriptive phrases. Additional correlations are available from
Goldberg’s (2008) Eugene-Springfield Community Sample.

Samples and Instruments

To verify that the forms of the HDS consistently and accurately reflect observers’ descriptions of an
individual, we compared correlations reported in these tables to similar content reported in Chapter 3 of
the Hogan Development Survey manual (R. Hogan & Hogan, 2009). Across scales, average differences
in scale-to-observer-rating correlates across HDS forms range from -.04 (Imaginative) to .00 (Reserved,
Bold, Diligent), with an average difference of -.02 across descriptors. Although correlations with certain
descriptors may be slightly higher or lower across HDS forms, these analyses confirm that the forms of
the HDS accurately and consistently reflect observer descriptions of a target individual.

Adjectival Descriptions and Personality Phrases. Two sets of correlations are provided for data collected
in Goldberg’s ESCS study. Respondents and observers (e.g., significant others, spouses, friends,
acquaintances, coworkers) completed the Self/Peer Inventories, composed of 88 items taken from
Saucier’s (1994) 40-item Big-Five “Mini-Markers” and the 44-item Big-Five Inventory (Benet-Martinez
& John, 1998; John & Srivastava, 1999), as well as two additional items in each inventory measuring
physical attractiveness. Respondents described how well each adjective or phrase described themselves
or the target individual using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Extremely Inaccurate) to 5 (Extremely
Accurate). Big-Five Mini-Marker adjectival description results appear in Table 14 and the Big-Five Inventory
personality phrases appear in Table 15.

Each participant and up to four observers of each participant completed these 88 items. The sample of 699
participants providing self ratings included 291 males and 395 females. Ages of subjects ranged from 18 to
85 years with a mean of 51.18 years (SD = 12.72). Observers also responded to items assessing how and
how well they knew the target, how much they liked the target, and demographic questions on gender and
age. The sample of 1,756 respondents providing observer ratings included 655 males and 1,095 females (6
did not indicate their sex). Ages of observers ranged from 6 to 94 years with a mean of 48.31 years (SD =
17.77). Observers were evenly split between spouses and other relatives (N = 883) compared with friends,
coworkers, acquaintances, and significant others (N = 854), with 19 not indicating their relationship to the
target. Most observers indicated knowing the target “well” or “very well” (N = 1,740), and most indicated
that they “liked” the target or liked the target “very much” (N = 1,671).

25
 Technical Supplement

For each of the 88 items, observer ratings were averaged across all observers. We used these mean
responses as the basis for calculating correlations between observer ratings and the HDS scale scores.

Table 14. HDS Correlations with Observer Ratings for Big-Five Mini-Marker Adjectives
EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Bashful .14 .03 .37** .14 .02 -.02 -.09 -.29** -.04 -.01 .20*
Bold -.02 .00 -.26 **
-.16 *
.00 .10 .24 **
.36 **
.16 -.08 -.15
Careless .00 .00 -.08 -.06 -.10 -.15 .03 .09 .05 -.25** -.09
Cold .09 .08 -.10 .10 .09 .12 .07 .04 .18* .04 -.13
Complex .00 .00 -.08 -.02 -.04 .05 -.02 .11 .14 .02 -.19*
Cooperative -.13 -.09 .06 -.17 *
-.16 *
.00 -.05 -.10 -.18 *
.06 .26**
Creative -.04 -.02 -.13 -.16 .00 .16 .09 .24 **
.31 **
.05 -.06
Deep -.08 -.12 .07 -.04 -.07 -.01 -.05 .10 .11 -.11 -.03
Disorganized -.03 -.02 .01 -.01 .06 -.11 .10 .20 *
.20 *
-.27 **
-.12
Efficient -.08 -.03 -.14 -.16 -.09 .15 -.10 -.17* -.12 .31** .11
Energetic -.07 .06 -.20* -.20* -.06 .13 .22** .22** .15 .02 .10
Envious .12 .08 -.13 -.08 .08 .10 .05 .04 .12 .08 -.19*
Extraverted -.05 .07 -.39 **
-.34 **
-.04 .08 .19 *
.35 **
.15 .10 .01
Fretful .21** .13 .16 .00 .23** .10 .10 .01 .16* .12 .01
Good-looking .01 -.05 .07 -.10 -.10 -.16 -.06 -.09 -.24** -.06 .18*
Harsh .16* .14 -.13 .10 .16 .12 .12 .06 .32** .05 -.17*
Imaginative -.07 -.01 -.12 -.11 .04 .17 *
.12 .27 **
.32 **
.05 .00
Inefficient .04 .02 .16* -.03 .07 -.21* .10 .11 .03 -.34** -.05
Intellectual -.13 -.08 -.05 .08 .01 .07 .03 .05 .10 -.02 -.09
Jealous .11 .06 -.04 -.02 .09 .12 .09 .10 .19* .17* -.13
Kind -.06 -.05 .03 -.18* -.08 -.02 .01 .04 -.09 -.03 .23**
Moody .25 **
.23 **
.07 .19 *
.17 *
-.02 .11 .08 .16 *
-.01 -.10
Organized -.01 .01 -.01 -.04 -.02 .14 -.07 -.23** -.16 .34** .21**
Philosophical -.16 -.19* .00 -.14 -.05 .04 .01 .21* .09 -.08 -.06
Practical -.18* -.19* .00 -.03 .00 .08 -.16 -.14 -.14 .22** .00
Quiet .03 -.12 .31 **
.23 **
.01 -.03 -.19 *
-.29 **
-.02 .02 .12
Relaxed -.13 -.08 -.09 -.01 -.17* .04 -.03 -.09 -.09 .05 .06
Rude .07 .03 -.14 .01 .12 -.01 .09 .15 .25** -.11 -.18*
Shy .04 -.02 .29** .14 -.03 -.03 -.12 -.30** -.04 -.05 .07
Sloppy .01 .01 .05 .07 .03 -.18 *
.04 .14 .04 -.45 **
-.17*
Sympathetic -.06 -.03 .15 -.24 **
.00 .01 -.09 .10 -.01 -.04 .22**
Systematic .00 -.03 -.09 -.03 .02 .22 **
.00 -.17 *
-.04 .31 **
.07
Talkative -.13 .04 -.22** -.33** .07 .02 .11 .31** .07 .08 -.02
Temperamental .26** .22** -.07 .14 .23** .14 .18* .09 .26** .08 -.15
Touchy .10 .04 -.03 .00 .10 .11 .05 .12 .17* .08 -.18*
Unattractive -.06 .02 -.08 .06 .08 .04 .00 -.02 .09 .07 -.19*
Uncreative .00 -.04 .13 .02 .03 -.21* -.12 -.23** -.21** -.12 .06
Unenvious -.20* -.18* -.01 .05 -.22** -.12 -.15 -.22** -.11 -.04 .08
Unintellectual .16 .13 .01 .00 -.04 -.07 -.10 -.13 -.11 -.06 .11
Unsympathetic .17* .10 -.02 .24** .01 .02 .04 -.07 .05 .02 -.25**
Warm -.07 -.02 .00 -.34** -.08 -.06 -.05 .05 -.13 -.02 .25**
Withdrawn .17* .06 .32** .34** .19* -.07 -.06 -.27** .04 -.16* -.09
Note. N = 148; EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL = Bold; MIS =
Mischievous; COL = Colorful; IMA = Imaginative; DIL = Diligent; DUT = Dutiful; * Correlation is significant at .05 level; **
Correlation is significant at .01 level.

26
 Technical Supplement

Table 15. HDS Correlations with Observer Ratings for Big-Five Inventory Phrases
EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Finds faults with others .16* .09 -.07 .03 .15 .08 .10 .16* .19* .06 -.24**
Does a thorough job .00 .01 -.02 -.09 -.03 .14 .06 -.03 -.02 .30 **
.19*
Is depressed/blue .28 **
.26 **
.16 .15 .23 **
-.09 .01 .02 .15 .09 -.08
Is reserved .11 -.05 .44** .28** .17* -.03 -.16* -.32** -.02 .08 .10
Can be somewhat careless -.01 -.01 .06 -.01 -.01 -.21 **
.00 .18 *
.04 -.45 **
-.12
Relaxed/
-.21* -.13 -.08 -.06 -.17* .00 -.04 -.07 -.13 -.14 .08
handles stress well
Full of energy -.01 .07 -.24** -.16* -.05 .14 .29** .27** .18* .00 .03
Starts quarrels with others .24 **
.20 *
.00 .11 .24 **
.09 .07 .10 .20 *
.10 -.13
Can be moody .28** .25** .04 .16* .12 .02 .10 .11 .18* -.01 -.11
A reliable worker -.03 .00 -.06 -.07 -.14 .09 .04 -.09 -.05 .09 .22**
Can be tense .19 *
.09 .04 .02 .18 *
.02 .02 .13 .18 *
.11 .00
Ingenious/deep thinker -.04 .02 -.01 .08 .08 .16 .08 .21* .28** -.02 -.08
Generates a lot of enthusiasm -.06 .03 -.26** -.37** -.05 .13 .22** .37** .14 -.04 .15
Has a forgiving nature -.16 *
-.18 *
.17 *
-.14 -.15 -.20 *
-.11 -.01 -.23** -.15 .31**
Physically attractive .05 .00 .05 -.15 -.14 -.06 -.01 .00 -.15 -.06 .20*
Tends to be disorganized .02 .02 .04 .04 .04 -.07 .15 .24 **
.19 *
-.31 **
-.16*
Worries a lot .23** .13 .21** .05 .20* -.06 .01 .00 .12 .03 -.03
Has an active imagination -.11 -.02 -.11 -.22 **
.06 .14 .19 *
.38 **
.34 **
.01 .02
Tends to be quiet .04 -.11 .34** .23** .00 -.02 -.19* -.34** -.04 .01 .13
Generally trusting -.06 .00 .00 -.06 -.10 -.02 -.08 -.07 -.13 -.01 .27**
Tends to be lazy .06 .09 .10 .08 .00 -.05 .03 -.05 -.04 -.17 *
-.12
Gets nervous easily .13 .11 .20* .00 .13 -.05 -.05 -.14 .02 -.01 .05
Emotionally stable/not easily
-.17* -.17* -.03 -.08 -.23** .00 -.01 -.08 -.16* .02 .23**
upset
Inventive .01 .04 -.22** -.08 .09 .23** .25** .29** .36** .14 .06
Has an assertive personality -.07 .03 -.41 **
-.23 **
-.02 .14 .20 *
.28 **
.13 .06 -.10
Original/comes up with new
-.02 .01 -.22** -.10 .08 .25** .23** .32** .37** .11 -.03
ideas
Can be cold and aloof .23** .12 .10 .23** .21* .11 .12 .01 .25** .17* -.17*
Not good-looking -.11 -.06 -.01 .12 .09 .01 -.06 -.03 .10 -.01 -.24**
Perseveres until the task is
-.08 -.08 -.08 .02 .01 .09 -.03 -.02 .02 .19* .17*
finished
Values artistic, aesthetic
-.13 -.08 -.07 -.22** -.06 .08 .04 .28** .19* -.05 -.06
experiences
Sometimes shy/inhibited .16* .02 .39** .22** .01 -.10 -.18* -.28** -.05 -.10 .05
Considerate and kind to almost
-.15 -.08 .14 -.15 -.09 -.02 -.05 -.02 -.14 -.05 .35**
everyone
Does things efficiently -.11 -.06 -.16* -.11 -.13 .18* -.06 -.08 -.08 .25** .13
Remains calm in tense
-.18* -.10 -.16 -.10 -.22** .03 .05 .04 -.09 -.09 .08
situations
Prefers routine work .11 .10 .29 **
.15 .12 -.21 **
-.21 *
-.32 **
-.19 *
.05 .28**
Helpful and unselfish with others -.10 -.03 .12 -.04 -.05 -.10 -.05 -.06 -.18* -.05 .24**
Outgoing/sociable -.11 -.01 -.30 **
-.36 **
-.05 .09 .14 .33 **
.04 .07 .10
Sometimes rude to others .13 .04 -.05 .04 .12 .03 .08 .14 .24** -.02 -.18*
Makes plans and follows
-.13 -.12 -.07 -.05 .00 .18* -.03 -.06 -.01 .27** .10
through

27
 Technical Supplement

Table 15. HDS Correlations with Observer Ratings for Big-Five Inventory Phrases (Continued)
EXC SKE CAU RES LEI BOL MIS COL IMA DIL DUT
Likes to reflect/play with ideas .01 .01 -.09 -.11 .08 .20 *
.19 *
.35 **
.36 **
.05 -.09
Has few artistic interests .09 .03 .06 .23** -.04 -.15 -.07 -.32** -.27** .04 .06
Likes to cooperate with others -.12 -.13 .15 -.14 -.07 -.11 -.16 -.06 -.26** -.04 .35**
Easily distracted .01 -.02 .04 -.12 .14 -.12 .08 .22** .16 -.16 .00
Sophisticated in art, music,
-.16 -.16* -.04 -.16* -.13 .04 -.02 .19* .15 -.11 -.11
literature
Curious about many different
.07 .16 -.13 -.09 .08 .19* .28** .36** .30** .03 -.03
things
Note. N = 148; EXC = Excitable; SKE = Skeptical; CAU = Cautious; RES = Reserved; LEI = Leisurely; BOL = Bold; MIS =
Mischievous; COL = Colorful; IMA = Imaginative; DIL = Diligent; DUT = Dutiful; * Correlation is significant at .05 level; **
Correlation is significant at .01 level.

28
 Technical Supplement

Results of Scale and Observer Description Correlates

Excitable. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Temperamental (.26), Moody
(.25), and Fretful (.21). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Unenvious (-.20), Practical
(-.18), and Philosophical (-.16). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations include Can be
moody (.28), Is depressed/blue (.28), and Starts quarrels with others (.24). Phrases with the largest
negative correlations include Relaxed/handles stress well (-.21), Remains calm in tense situations (-.18),
and Emotionally stable/not easily upset (-.17).

Skeptical. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Moody (.23), Temperamental
(.22), and Harsh (.14). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Practical (-.19),
Philosophical (-.19), and Unenvious (-.18). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations
include Is depressed/blue (.26), Can be moody (.25), and Starts quarrels with others (.20). Phrases with
the largest negative correlations include Has a forgiving nature (-.18), Emotionally stable/not easily upset
(-.17), and Sophisticated in art, music, literature (-.16).

Cautious. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Bashful (.37), Withdrawn
(.32), and Quiet (.31). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Extraverted (-.39), Bold
(-.26), and Talkative (-.22). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations include Is reserved
(.44), Sometimes shy/inhibited (.39), and Tends to be quiet (.34). Phrases with the largest negative
correlations include Has an assertive personality (-.41), Outgoing/sociable (-.30), and Generates a lot of
enthusiasm (-.26).

Reserved. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Withdrawn (.34),
Unsympathetic (.24), and Quiet (.23). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Extraverted
(-.34), Warm (-.34), and Talkative (-.33). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations include
Is reserved (.28), Has few artistic interests (.23), and Can be cold and aloof (.23). Phrases with the
largest negative correlations include Generates a lot of enthusiasm (-.37), Outgoing/sociable (-.36), and
Has an assertive personality (-.23).

Leisurely. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Fretful (.23), Temperamental
(.23), and Withdrawn (.19). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Unenvious (-.22),
Relaxed (-.17), and Cooperative (-.16). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations include
Starts quarrels with others (.24), Is depressed/blue (.23), and Can be cold and aloof (.21). Phrases with
the largest negative correlations include Emotionally stable/not easily upset (-.23), Remains calm in tense
situations (-.22), and Relaxed/handles stress well (-.17).

Bold. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Systematic (.22), Imaginative
(.17), and Creative (.16). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Uncreative (-.21),
Inefficient (-.21), and Sloppy (-.18). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations include
Original/comes up with new ideas (.25), Inventive (.23), and Likes to reflect/play with ideas (.20). Phrases
with the largest negative correlations include Can be somewhat careless (-.21), Prefers routine work (-.21),
and Has a forgiving nature (-.20).

Mischievous. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Bold (.24), Energetic
(.22), and Extraverted (.19). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Quiet (-.19), Practical

29
 Technical Supplement

(-.16), and Unenvious (-.15). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations include Full of
energy (.29), Curious about many different things (.28), and Inventive (.25). Phrases with the largest
negative correlations include Prefers routine work (-.21), Tends to be quiet (-.19), and Sometimes shy/
inhibited (-.18).

Colorful. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Bold (.36), Extraverted (.35),
and Talkative (.31). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Shy (-.30), Quiet (-.29), and
Bashful (-.29). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations include Has an active imagination
(.38), Generates a lot of enthusiasm (.37), and Curious about many different things (.36). Phrases with
the largest negative correlations include Tends to be quiet (-.34), Has few artistic interests (-.32), Prefers
routine work (-.32), and Is reserved (-.32).

Imaginative. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Harsh (.32), Imaginative
(.32), and Creative (.31). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Uncreative (-.21),
Cooperative (-.18), and Organized (-.16). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations include
Original/comes up with new ideas (.37), Inventive (.36), and Likes to reflect/play with ideas (.36). Phrases
with the largest negative correlations include Has few artistic interests (-.27), Likes to cooperate with
others (-.26), and Has a forgiving nature (-.23).

Diligent. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Organized (.34), Efficient
(.31), and Systematic (.31). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Sloppy (-.45),
Inefficient (-.34), and Disorganized (-.27). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations include
Does a thorough job (.30), Makes plans and follows through (.27), and Does things efficiently (.25).
Phrases with the largest negative correlations include Can be somewhat careless (-.45), Tends to be
disorganized (-.31), and Tends to be lazy (-.17).

Dutiful. Adjectives in Table 14 with the largest positive correlations include Cooperative (.26), Warm (.25),
and Kind (.23). Adjectives with the largest negative correlations include Unsympathetic (-.25), Complex
(-.19), and Envious (-.19). Phrases in Table 15 with the largest positive correlations include Considerate
and kind to almost everyone (.35), Likes to cooperate with others (.35), and Has a forgiving nature (.31).
Phrases with the largest negative correlations include Finds faults with others (-.24), Sometimes rude to
others (-.18), and Can be cold and aloof (-.17).

30
 Technical Supplement

Interpretation of HDS Scale and SUBSCALE Scores

The HDS provides information on dysfunctional behaviors that may emerge at work, impeding efforts
to “get along” and “get ahead.” Such behaviors may emerge in team interactions or relationships with
subordinates or supervisors, or in circumstances that challenge self-regulation such as stress, fatigue,
or ambiguity. Higher scores on any HDS scale indicate that the person is more likely to engage in
maladaptive behavior.

Chapter 4 of the Hogan Development Survey manual (R. Hogan & Hogan, 2009) provides scale
interpretation and examples for how to interpret HDS scales. More detailed interpretation for each HDS
scale can be found in The Hogan Guide: Interpretation and Use of Hogan Inventories (R. Hogan, Hogan,
& Warrenfeltz, 2007). The new HDS form, however, provides additional information to enrich scale
score interpretation. Scores for the 33 subscales provide more detailed information about how those
derailers are likely to manifest themselves in behavior. This fine-grained information is valuable across
organizational applications ranging from recruitment and selection to coaching, leadership development,
and succession planning. Individuals across organizational levels and job categories can use this
information for development to minimize their risk of derailment by focusing on specific behaviors likely to
emerge under stress.

To supplement the interpretive information provided in the Hogan Development Survey manual (R.
Hogan & Hogan, 2009) and The Hogan Guide (R. Hogan, Hogan, & Warrenfeltz, 2007), this section
provides information about how HDS subscales enrich interpretation. Following an overview of how HDS
subscales enhance score interpretation, we provide sample profiles matching those provided in the Hogan
Development Survey manual (R. Hogan & Hogan, 2009). However, these sample profiles include subscale
scores to detail interpretation.

HDS scale scores describe dysfunctional dispositions that may emerge under stress, but not specific
behavioral manifestations of these dispositions. Without subscale scores, HDS users are left to assume
that a person with a high HDS scale score will evidence all behaviors associated with the scale. However,
such is often not the case. By providing subscale-level scores, the new form of the HDS offers a more
detailed summary of a person’s likely behavior under stress. Information across all HDS scales appears in
Table 16.

31
 Technical Supplement

Table 16. Sample Interpretations for High HDS Scores with and without Subscales
Example High Score Interpretation
HDS Scale Example High Score Interpretation
with Subscales
The individual represents ALL tendencies The individual may represent some tendencies included
included in the scale, including being moody in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
Excitable and emotionally volatile, quick to move from may become easily disappointed or emotionally volatile
enthusiasm to disappointment, and lacking well- when under stress, but may possess a core of well-
defined beliefs. defined beliefs and interests.
The individual may represent some tendencies included
The individual represents ALL tendencies
in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
included in the scale, including being alert
Skeptical may remain alert for signs of perceived mistreatment
for signs of perceived mistreatment, doubting
and hold grudges, but may not assume ulterior motives
others’ intentions, and holding grudges.
in others’ actions.
The individual may represent some tendencies included
The individual represents ALL tendencies in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
Cautious included in the scale, including being avoidant, may behave in a fearful and unassertive manner
fearful of criticism, and unassertive. when under stress, but may not avoid new people and
situations.
The individual may represent some tendencies included
The individual represents ALL tendencies in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
Reserved included in the scale, including being introverted, may become more introverted and unsocial when under
unsocial, and insensitive to others’ problems. stress, but may actually be highly sensitive to others’
problems.
The individual may represent some tendencies included
The individual represents ALL tendencies
in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
included in the scale, including being passive
Leisurely may react to stress in passive aggressive or resentful
aggressive, perceived as unappreciated, and
ways, but may feel that his/her contributions are
privately resentful.
recognized and appreciated.
The individual may represent some tendencies included
The individual represents ALL tendencies
in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
included in the scale, including being arrogant,
Bold may behave in an arrogant and entitled manner when
entitled, and believing that he/she has unusual
under stress, but may not believe that he/she is
talents and gifts.
destined for greatness because of unusual gifts.
The individual may represent some tendencies included
The individual represents ALL tendencies
in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
included in the scale, including being risk-taking,
Mischievous may behave in a risky and impulsive manner when
impulsive and spontaneous, and manipulative of
under stress, but may be unlikely to manipulate others
others.
in these situations.
The individual may represent some tendencies included
The individual represents ALL tendencies
in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
included in the scale, including being excessively
Colorful may behave in a dramatic and attention-seeking manner
dramatic, easily distracted, and seeking others’
when under stress, but may not be easily distracted in
attention.
these situations.
The individual represents ALL tendencies The individual may represent some tendencies included
included in the scale, including being odd and in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
Imaginative eccentric, unusually creative, and believing may behave in eccentric and unusually creative ways
that he/she has special abilities to understand when under stress, but may not believe that he/she
things that others cannot. possesses special insights.
The individual represents ALL tendencies The individual may represent some tendencies included
included in the scale, including being in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
Diligent perfectionistic, meticulous, and having may be perfectionistic and meticulously organized when
exceptionally high standards for him/herself and under stress, but may hold realistic standards for him/
others. herself and others.
The individual may represent some tendencies included
The individual represents ALL tendencies includ- in the scale, but not others. For example, the individual
Dutiful ed in the scale, including being indecisive, ingra- may behave in conforming and ingratiating ways when
tiating to superiors, and excessively conforming. under stress, but may have no problems making
independent decisions.

32
 Technical Supplement

Sample HDS Profile Interpretations

To further illustrate the value of HDS subscales, we offer seven sample profiles. For each, we provide a
sample report.

A “Moving Away” profile is provided in Figure 1. This profile is dominated by elevated scores on the
primary scales comprising the first factor of the HDS.

Figure 1. HDS “Moving Away” Profile

FLASH REPORT CONFIDENTIAL

Subscale Scores Subscale Scores Subscale Scores

(Items endorsed / Items in subscale) (Items endorsed / Items in subscale) (Minimum / Observed / Maximum)

1. Validity 12/14 Excitable Recognition

HIGH RISK

Adjustment Volatile 1. Lifestyle 4/7/12

Easily Disappointed 2. Beliefs 4/7/12
2. Empathy 2/5 No Direction 3. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
3. Not Anxious 2/4 4. Aversions 4/7/12
4. No Guilt 2/6 Skeptical 5. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
HIGH RISK
5. Calmness 2/4 Cynical
6. Even-tempered 2/5
Power
Mistrusting
7. No Complaints 2/5 Grudges 6. Lifestyle 4/7/12
8. Trusting 2/3 7. Beliefs 4/7/12
9. Good Attachment 2/5 Cautious 8. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
HIGH RISK
Avoidant 9. Aversions 4/7/12
Ambition 10. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Fearful
10. Competitive 2/5 Unassertive Hedonism
11. Self-confident 2/3
12. Accomplishment 2/6 Reserved 11. Lifestyle 4/7/12
13. Leadership 2/6
HIGH RISK
12. Beliefs 4/7/12
Introverted
14. Identity 2/3 13. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
Unsocial
15. No Social Anxiety 2/6 14. Aversions 4/7/12
Tough
15. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Sociability Leisurely
HIGH RISK
Altruistic
16. Likes Parties 2/5 Passive Aggressive
17. Likes Crowds 2/4 16. Lifestyle 4/7/12
Unappreciated 17. Beliefs 4/7/12
18. Experience Seeking 2/6 Irritated
19. Exhibitionistic 2/5 18. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
20. Entertaining 2/4 Bold 19. Aversions 4/7/12
HIGH RISK 20. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Interpersonal Sensitivity Entitled
Overconfidence Affiliation
21. Easy To Live With 2/5 Fantasized Talent 21. Lifestyle 4/7/12
22. Sensitive 2/4
Mischievous 22. Beliefs 4/7/12
23. Caring 2/4
HIGH RISK 23. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
24. Likes People 2/6 Risky 24. Aversions 4/7/12
25. No Hostility 2/3 Impulsive 25. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Prudence Manipulative
Tradition
26. Moralistic 2/5 Colorful
HIGH RISK
26. Lifestyle 4/7/12
27. Mastery 2/4 Public Confidence 27. Beliefs 4/7/12
28. Virtuous 2/5 Distractible 28. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
29. Not Autonomous 2/3 Self-display 29. Aversions 4/7/12
30. Not Spontaneous 2/4 30. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
31. Impulse Control 2/5 Imaginative
32. Avoids Trouble 2/5 HIGH RISK Security
Eccentric
Inquisitive Special Sensitivity 31. Lifestyle 4/7/12
Creative Thinking 32. Beliefs 4/7/12
33. Science Ability 2/5 33. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
34. Curiosity 2/3 Diligent 34. Aversions 4/7/12
35. Thrill Seeking 2/5 Standards
HIGH RISK
35. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
36. Intellectual Games 2/3 Perfectionistic
37. Generates Ideas 2/5 Commerce
Organized
38. Culture 2/4 36. Lifestyle 4/7/15
Dutiful 37. Beliefs 4/7/12
Learning Approach
Indecisive
HIGH RISK
38. Occupational Preferences 4/7/15
39. Education 2/3 Ingratiating 39. Aversions 4/7/15
40. Math Ability 2/3 Conforming 40. Preferred Associates 4/7/15
41. Good Memory 2/4 Aesthetics
42. Reading 2/4
41. Lifestyle 4/7/12
42. Beliefs 4/7/12
43. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
44. Aversions 4/7/12
45. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Science
46. Lifestyle 4/7/12
47. Beliefs 4/7/12
48. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
49. Aversions 4/7/12
50. Preferred Associates 4/7/12

ID: UH002959 J a n e Av e r a g e 4 . 2 2 . 2 0 1 4 1

33
 Technical Supplement

This profile describes a person who is prone to emotional swings between enthusiasm and distaste
(Excitable, Volatile and Easily Disappointed), vigilant for signs of betrayal, and given to retaliation
(Skeptical, Cynical and Mistrusting). Beneath this volatile exterior, he is insecure and afraid of criticism
(Cautious, Fearful), resentful of superiors (Leisurely, Passive Aggressive and Irritated), but also quiet and
withdrawn (Reserved, Introverted and Unsocial). As such, his insecurity and resentment should go largely
unnoticed. These characteristics maintain distance between this man and other people. In addition, he is
nonconforming (Dutiful, Conforming) and flexible (Diligent, Perfectionistic). While he is alone, he generates
interesting and sometimes far-fetched ideas about his life and what is happening to him (Imaginative,
Eccentric and Creative Thinking).

A “Moving Against” profile appears in Figure 2. This profile is characterized by elevated scores on the
scales comprising the second factor of the HDS.

Figure 2. HDS “Moving Against” Profile

HOGANLEAD CHALLENGE

LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE PROFILE

Scales Percentiles
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Excitable 33

Skeptical 90

Cautious 35

Reserved 24

Leisurely 72

Bold 93

Mischievous 99

Colorful 100

Imaginative 89

Diligent 39

Dutiful 37

NO RISK LOW RISK MODERATE RISK HIGH RISK

Subscale Scores

Excitable Bold Diligent

HIGH RISK HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Volatile Entitled Standards
Easily Disappointed Overconfidence Perfectionistic
No Direction Fantasized Talent Organized

Skeptical Mischievous Dutiful

HIGH RISK HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Cynical Risky Indecisive
Mistrusting Impulsive Ingratiating
Grudges Manipulative Conforming

Cautious Colorful
HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Avoidant Public Confidence
Fearful Distractible
Unassertive Self-Display

Reserved Imaginative
HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Introverted Eccentric
Unsocial Special Sensitivity
Tough Creative Thinking

Leisurely
HIGH RISK
Passive Aggressive
Unappreciated
Irritated

ID:UH506526 Risk Moderate 4.22.2014 20

34
 Technical Supplement

This person is outgoing and insightful (Reserved, Introverted and Unsocial), dramatic and attention-
seeking (Colorful, Public Confidence and Self-Display), impulsive and limit-testing (Mischievous, Risky
and Impulsive), bright and charismatic (Bold, Overconfidence and Fantasized Talent), and creative and
innovative (Imaginative, Eccentric and Creative Thinking). He tends to distrust others and to feel exploited
(Skeptical, Cynical and Mistrusting), and his public self-confidence may obscure private self-doubt. Not
hidden, however, is arrogance (Bold, Overconfidence) that is likely to emerge in stressful circumstances. In
these contexts, his need to dominate, dazzle, or intimidate others can be expected to emerge.

Figure 3 provides a sample of a “Moving Toward” profile, with elevated scale scores on the third HDS
factor.

Figure 3. HDS “Moving Toward” Profile

HOGANDEVELOP HOGANDEVELOP

INSIGHT INSIGHT

SCALE : DILIGENT SCALE : DUTIFUL

93 72

DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
The Diligent scale concerns being hardworking, detail-oriented, and having high standards of performance for self and The Dutiful scale concerns seeming to be a loyal and dependable subordinate and organizational citizen.
others.

S C O R E I N T E R P R E TAT I O N
S C O R E I N T E R P R E TAT I O N Ms. Average’s score on the Dutiful scale suggests she tends to:
Ms. Average’s score on the Diligent scale suggests she tends to: • Pay attention to the needs and expectations of his/her boss
• Seem somewhat perfectionistic • Seek approval from his/her boss before taking action
• Focus on the details and ignore the big picture • Respect and rarely question authority
• Expect too much from others • Seldom deliberately make waves
• Be stubborn and inflexible with regard to how work gets done • Seem reluctant to offer strong opinions, especially in the company of his/her boss
• Prefer to do things himself/herself • Always support senior management

DISCUSSION POINTS DISCUSSION POINTS

The discussion points below are designed to facilitate discussion with a coach or feedback provider to explore The discussion points below are designed to facilitate discussion with a coach or feedback provider to explore
assessment results and reflect on opportunities for development based on the context of the participant’s role. assessment results and reflect on opportunities for development based on the context of the participant’s role.
• How do you decide what work or projects should be delegated to others? • How much respect should upper management be afforded?
• Describe the performance standards you place on yourself and others. • How do you make sure to keep your boss happy?
• How do you balance the quality of a work product with the need for completion? • How often do you consult with your boss before making decisions?
• When is it appropriate for yourself or others to put in extra hours to get a project done? • How do you balance the needs of management with that of your team or subordinates?
• What is the typical explanation for deadlines you miss? • Describe your approach to expressing disagreement with your boss.

SUBSCALE COMPOSITION SUBSCALE COMPOSITION

The subscales below should be interpreted by a certified coach or feedback provider. They are designed to provide The subscales below should be interpreted by a certified coach or feedback provider. They are designed to provide
more detailed insight into Ms. Average’s unique personality characteristics. more detailed insight into Ms. Average’s unique personality characteristics.

Standards HIGH RISK Indecisive HIGH RISK

Having exceptionally high standards of performance for oneself and Overly reliant on others for advice and reluctant to make decisions or
others act independently

Perfectionistic HIGH RISK Ingratiating HIGH RISK

Perfectionistic about the quality of work products and obsessed with Excessively eager to please one’s superiors, telling them what they
the details of their completion want to hear, and never contradicting them

Organized HIGH RISK Conforming HIGH RISK

Meticulous and inflexible about schedules, timing, rules, and Taking pride in supporting one’s superiors and following their orders
procedures regardless of one’s personal opinion

I D : U H 0 0 2 9 9 5 9 J a n e Av e r a g e 9 . 1 9 . 2 0 1 3 1 I D : U H 0 0 2 9 9 5 9 J a n e Av e r a g e 9 . 1 9 . 2 0 1 3 2

35
 Technical Supplement

This woman is mild-mannered (Excitable, Volatile), good-natured (Skeptical, Cynical and Mistrusting),
pleasant (Leisurely, Passive Aggressive and Irritated), modest (Bold, Overconfidence), quiet (Colorful,
Self-Display), and reluctant to take risks (Mischievous, Risky). She is concerned about others’ feelings
(Reserved, Tough), but also moderately concerned about opinions others have of her (Cautious,
Fearful). Problems may emerge due to her high standards and perfectionism (Diligent, Standards
and Perfectionistic) and her need to be held in high regard by supervisors (Dutiful, Ingratiating and
Conforming). In many ways she is an exemplary employee because she follows rules and is eager to
please. However, high Diligent and Dutiful scores suggest she will be reluctant to take initiative, will resist
innovation, and will tell colleagues what they want to hear. She is so perfectionistic that she may miss
deadlines and micromanage subordinates.

Figure 4 summarizes a “corporate guerilla”, with elevated scale scores on the second factor of the HDS
and low scale scores on the third factor of the HDS.

Figure 4. HDS “Corporate Guerilla” Profile

FLASH REPORT CONFIDENTIAL

Subscale Scores Subscale Scores Subscale Scores

(Items endorsed / Items in subscale) (Items endorsed / Items in subscale) (Minimum / Observed / Maximum)

1. Validity 12/14 Excitable Recognition

HIGH RISK

Adjustment Volatile 1. Lifestyle 4/7/12

Easily Disappointed 2. Beliefs 4/7/12
2. Empathy 2/5 No Direction 3. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
3. Not Anxious 2/4 4. Aversions 4/7/12
4. No Guilt 2/6 Skeptical 5. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
HIGH RISK
5. Calmness 2/4 Cynical
6. Even-tempered 2/5
Power
Mistrusting
7. No Complaints 2/5 Grudges 6. Lifestyle 4/7/12
8. Trusting 2/3 7. Beliefs 4/7/12
9. Good Attachment 2/5 Cautious 8. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
HIGH RISK
Avoidant 9. Aversions 4/7/12
Ambition 10. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Fearful
10. Competitive 2/5 Unassertive Hedonism
11. Self-confident 2/3
12. Accomplishment 2/6 Reserved 11. Lifestyle 4/7/12
13. Leadership 2/6
HIGH RISK
12. Beliefs 4/7/12
Introverted
14. Identity 2/3 13. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
Unsocial
15. No Social Anxiety 2/6 14. Aversions 4/7/12
Tough
15. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Sociability Leisurely
HIGH RISK
Altruistic
16. Likes Parties 2/5 Passive Aggressive
17. Likes Crowds 2/4 16. Lifestyle 4/7/12
Unappreciated 17. Beliefs 4/7/12
18. Experience Seeking 2/6 Irritated
19. Exhibitionistic 2/5 18. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
20. Entertaining 2/4 Bold 19. Aversions 4/7/12
HIGH RISK 20. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Interpersonal Sensitivity Entitled
Overconfidence Affiliation
21. Easy To Live With 2/5 Fantasized Talent 21. Lifestyle 4/7/12
22. Sensitive 2/4
Mischievous 22. Beliefs 4/7/12
23. Caring 2/4
HIGH RISK 23. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
24. Likes People 2/6 Risky 24. Aversions 4/7/12
25. No Hostility 2/3 Impulsive 25. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Prudence Manipulative
Tradition
26. Moralistic 2/5 Colorful
HIGH RISK
26. Lifestyle 4/7/12
27. Mastery 2/4 Public Confidence 27. Beliefs 4/7/12
28. Virtuous 2/5 Distractible 28. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
29. Not Autonomous 2/3 Self-display 29. Aversions 4/7/12
30. Not Spontaneous 2/4 30. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
31. Impulse Control 2/5 Imaginative
32. Avoids Trouble 2/5 HIGH RISK Security
Eccentric
Inquisitive Special Sensitivity 31. Lifestyle 4/7/12
Creative Thinking 32. Beliefs 4/7/12
33. Science Ability 2/5 33. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
34. Curiosity 2/3 Diligent 34. Aversions 4/7/12
35. Thrill Seeking 2/5 Standards
HIGH RISK
35. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
36. Intellectual Games 2/3 Perfectionistic
37. Generates Ideas 2/5 Commerce
Organized
38. Culture 2/4 36. Lifestyle 4/7/15
Dutiful 37. Beliefs 4/7/12
Learning Approach
Indecisive
HIGH RISK
38. Occupational Preferences 4/7/15
39. Education 2/3 Ingratiating 39. Aversions 4/7/15
40. Math Ability 2/3 Conforming 40. Preferred Associates 4/7/15
41. Good Memory 2/4 Aesthetics
42. Reading 2/4
41. Lifestyle 4/7/12
42. Beliefs 4/7/12
43. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
44. Aversions 4/7/12
45. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Science
46. Lifestyle 4/7/12
47. Beliefs 4/7/12
48. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
49. Aversions 4/7/12
50. Preferred Associates 4/7/12

ID: UH002959 J a n e Av e r a g e 4 . 2 2 . 2 0 1 4 1

36
 Technical Supplement

The “corporate guerilla” seems confident and self-promoting (Bold, Entitled and Overconfidence),
dramatic and attention-seeking (Colorful, Public Confidence and Self-Display), innovative but distractible
(Imaginative, Eccentric and Creative Thinking), indifferent to others’ needs (Reserved, Tough), decisive
(Dutiful, Indecisive), and unconcerned with details (Diligent, Perfectionistic). This person appears
assertive, but may also resent others (Leisurely, Irritated) and behave impulsively (Mischievous,
Impulsive). He may present himself as motivated toward meeting corporate goals, but covertly sets his
own rules, resents management, fails to consider the consequences of his actions, and advances his own
agenda at others’ expense.

Figure 5 illustrates an unusual and complex pattern of HDS scores with at least one significant elevation
on scales from each of the three factors.

Figure 5. HDS “Insecure Showboat” Profile

HOGANLEAD CHALLENGE

LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE PROFILE

Scales Percentiles
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Excitable 98

Skeptical 72

Cautious 80

Reserved 46

Leisurely 32

Bold 93

Mischievous 76

Colorful 99

Imaginative 40

Diligent 24

Dutiful 100

NO RISK LOW RISK MODERATE RISK HIGH RISK

Subscale Scores

Excitable Bold Diligent

HIGH RISK HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Volatile Entitled Standards
Easily Disappointed Overconfidence Perfectionistic
No Direction Fantasized Talent Organized

Skeptical Mischievous Dutiful

HIGH RISK HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Cynical Risky Indecisive
Mistrusting Impulsive Ingratiating
Grudges Manipulative Conforming

Cautious Colorful
HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Avoidant Public Confidence
Fearful Distractible
Unassertive Self-Display

Reserved Imaginative
HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Introverted Eccentric
Unsocial Special Sensitivity
Tough Creative Thinking

Leisurely
HIGH RISK
Passive Aggressive
Unappreciated
Irritated

ID:UH506526 Risk Moderate 4.22.2014 20

37
 Technical Supplement

The “insecure showboat” is perceived by others as arrogant and entitled (Bold, Entitled and
Overconfidence), expressive and dramatic (Colorful, Public Confidence and Self-Display), but not creative
(Imaginative, Creative Thinking). However, she also distrusts others (Skeptical, Mistrusting) and easily
gives up on projects when frustrations arise (Excitable, Volatile and Easily Disappointed). Although
uncharacteristic for someone with high Bold and Colorful scores, she fears embarrassment (Cautious,
Fearful) and seeks favor with supervisors (Dutiful, Ingratiating and Conforming). These behaviors are
likely a veneer for private self-doubt, as she may impress others as self-confident but is likely to become
emotional and critical when things go awry. The atypical pattern of HDS scale and subscale scores
indicates that her self-centered, attention-seeking, and arrogant behaviors compensate for underlying self-
doubt.

A “litigious” profile presented in Figure 6 is characterized by high scores on the Excitable, Leisurely,
Skeptical, Imaginative, and Diligent scales and relevant subscales. This represents another example of
high scores on at least one scale of each HDS factor.

Figure 6. HDS “Litigious” Profile

FLASH REPORT CONFIDENTIAL

Subscale Scores Subscale Scores Subscale Scores

(Items endorsed / Items in subscale) (Items endorsed / Items in subscale) (Minimum / Observed / Maximum)

1. Validity 12/14 Excitable Recognition

HIGH RISK

Adjustment Volatile 1. Lifestyle 4/7/12

Easily Disappointed 2. Beliefs 4/7/12
2. Empathy 2/5 No Direction 3. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
3. Not Anxious 2/4 4. Aversions 4/7/12
4. No Guilt 2/6 Skeptical 5. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
HIGH RISK
5. Calmness 2/4 Cynical
6. Even-tempered 2/5
Power
Mistrusting
7. No Complaints 2/5 Grudges 6. Lifestyle 4/7/12
8. Trusting 2/3 7. Beliefs 4/7/12
9. Good Attachment 2/5 Cautious 8. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
HIGH RISK
Avoidant 9. Aversions 4/7/12
Ambition 10. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Fearful
10. Competitive 2/5 Unassertive Hedonism
11. Self-confident 2/3
12. Accomplishment 2/6 Reserved 11. Lifestyle 4/7/12
13. Leadership 2/6
HIGH RISK
12. Beliefs 4/7/12
Introverted
14. Identity 2/3 13. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
Unsocial
15. No Social Anxiety 2/6 14. Aversions 4/7/12
Tough
15. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Sociability Leisurely
HIGH RISK
Altruistic
16. Likes Parties 2/5 Passive Aggressive
17. Likes Crowds 2/4 16. Lifestyle 4/7/12
Unappreciated 17. Beliefs 4/7/12
18. Experience Seeking 2/6 Irritated
19. Exhibitionistic 2/5 18. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
20. Entertaining 2/4 Bold 19. Aversions 4/7/12
HIGH RISK 20. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Interpersonal Sensitivity Entitled
Overconfidence Affiliation
21. Easy To Live With 2/5 Fantasized Talent 21. Lifestyle 4/7/12
22. Sensitive 2/4
Mischievous 22. Beliefs 4/7/12
23. Caring 2/4
HIGH RISK 23. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
24. Likes People 2/6 Risky 24. Aversions 4/7/12
25. No Hostility 2/3 Impulsive 25. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Prudence Manipulative
Tradition
26. Moralistic 2/5 Colorful
HIGH RISK
26. Lifestyle 4/7/12
27. Mastery 2/4 Public Confidence 27. Beliefs 4/7/12
28. Virtuous 2/5 Distractible 28. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
29. Not Autonomous 2/3 Self-display 29. Aversions 4/7/12
30. Not Spontaneous 2/4 30. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
31. Impulse Control 2/5 Imaginative
32. Avoids Trouble 2/5 HIGH RISK Security
Eccentric
Inquisitive Special Sensitivity 31. Lifestyle 4/7/12
Creative Thinking 32. Beliefs 4/7/12
33. Science Ability 2/5 33. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
34. Curiosity 2/3 Diligent 34. Aversions 4/7/12
35. Thrill Seeking 2/5 Standards
HIGH RISK
35. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
36. Intellectual Games 2/3 Perfectionistic
37. Generates Ideas 2/5 Commerce
Organized
38. Culture 2/4 36. Lifestyle 4/7/15
Dutiful 37. Beliefs 4/7/12
Learning Approach
Indecisive
HIGH RISK
38. Occupational Preferences 4/7/15
39. Education 2/3 Ingratiating 39. Aversions 4/7/15
40. Math Ability 2/3 Conforming 40. Preferred Associates 4/7/15
41. Good Memory 2/4 Aesthetics
42. Reading 2/4
41. Lifestyle 4/7/12
42. Beliefs 4/7/12
43. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
44. Aversions 4/7/12
45. Preferred Associates 4/7/12
Science
46. Lifestyle 4/7/12
47. Beliefs 4/7/12
48. Occupational Preferences 4/7/12
49. Aversions 4/7/12
50. Preferred Associates 4/7/12

ID: UH002959 J a n e Av e r a g e 4 . 2 2 . 2 0 1 4 1

38
 Technical Supplement

This person is easily upset (Excitable, Volatile), resents perceived inequities (Leisurely, Unappreciated and
Irritated), distrustful about others (Skeptical, Cynical and Mistrusting), and has unusual ideas (Imaginative,
Eccentric and Creative Thinking). He can also be critical and overly focused on how things ought to be
(Diligent, Standards and Perfectionistic). His charisma and interpersonal skill (Bold, Overconfidence and
Entitled) will mask his tendency toward delinquent behaviors (Mischievous, Risky and Manipulative).

Finally, a sample HDS profile for a “fear-driven salesman” appears in Figure 7.

Figure 7. HDS “Fear-Driven Salesman” Profile

HOGANLEAD CHALLENGE

LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE PROFILE

Scales Percentiles
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Excitable 53

Skeptical 83

Cautious 15

Reserved 24

Leisurely 85

Bold 86

Mischievous 99

Colorful 93

Imaginative 89

Diligent 39

Dutiful 11

NO RISK LOW RISK MODERATE RISK HIGH RISK

Subscale Scores

Excitable Bold Diligent

HIGH RISK HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Volatile Entitled Standards
Easily Disappointed Overconfidence Perfectionistic
No Direction Fantasized Talent Organized

Skeptical Mischievous Dutiful

HIGH RISK HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Cynical Risky Indecisive
Mistrusting Impulsive Ingratiating
Grudges Manipulative Conforming

Cautious Colorful
HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Avoidant Public Confidence
Fearful Distractible
Unassertive Self-Display

Reserved Imaginative
HIGH RISK HIGH RISK
Introverted Eccentric
Unsocial Special Sensitivity
Tough Creative Thinking

Leisurely
HIGH RISK
Passive Aggressive
Unappreciated
Irritated

ID:UH506526 Risk Moderate 4.22.2014 20

39
 Technical Supplement

Elevated scores on the scales comprising the second HDS factor suggest this man will seem outgoing
and confident (Bold, Entitled and Overconfidence), risk-taking and impulsive (Mischievous, Risky and
Impulsive), dramatic and entertaining (Colorful, Public Confidence and Self-Display), and creative and
eccentric (Imaginative, Eccentric and Creative Thinking). Scores on other scales and subscales suggest he
is socially engaged (Reserved, Introverted), unconcerned about others (Cautious, Avoidant and Fearful),
and independent (Dutiful, Indecisive). Although dynamic, charming, socially skilled, bright, and imaginative,
he has some private self-doubts. He is likely to be easily irritated by others (Leisurely, Irritated), and to
clash with his supervisors (Excitable, Volatile).

40
 Technical Supplement

Utility of HDS SUBSCALE Information

Information provided in HDS subscale scores is of no use unless this new information provides
added value for employee coaching and leadership development. To check the value of HDS subscale
information, we administered the new HDS form to participants from public and private Hogan certification
workshops. Third party coaches who provided participants with assessment feedback were provided with
HDS reports and Data Reports providing HDS scale and subscale scores for each participant. Coaches
used these materials to prepare and deliver feedback, and were surveyed about their perceptions of the
accuracy and value of HDS subscales following these sessions.

For each participant who completed the HDS, coaches were asked about their impressions of (a) the
accuracy of HDS scales in the new form, (b) the value of HDS subscale information, and (c) how well
the new HDS form aligned with interpretive text provided in existing HDS reports. The following sections
describe these results.

Accuracy of HDS Scales

For each participant, coaches were asked whether they found HDS scale scores in the new form less
accurate, as accurate, or more accurate than HDS scale scores in the existing form. Scale scores for
the new HDS were rated as more accurate than scale scores for the existing HDS across 22.1% of
participants, ranging from 12.2% (Colorful) to 48.9% (Imaginative). Coaches found scale scores from the
new HDS as accurate as those from the existing HDS across 68.4% of participants, ranging from 38.3%
(Imaginative) to 82.5% (Mischievous). Scale scores from the new HDS were rated as less accurate than
those from the existing HDS for less than one in ten participants (9.4%) across scales, ranging from 2.5%
(Diligent) to 20.5% (Bold) (see Figure 8).

41
 Technical Supplement

Figure 8. Accuracy of HDS Scale Scores in New Form vs. Existing HDS

Excitable
Skeptical
Cautious
Reserved
Leisurely
Bold
Mischievous
Colorful
Imaginative
Diligent
Dutiful

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Less Accurate As Accurate More Accurate

For simplicity, we combined as accurate and more accurate responses for additional analyses. For these
results, scale scores for the new HDS were rated as or more accurate than those from the existing HDS for
90.6% of participants, ranging from 79.5% (Bold) to 97.5% (Diligent). These results are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Dichotomous Accuracy of HDS Scale Scores in New Form vs. Existing HDS

Excitable
Skeptical
Cautious
Reserved
Leisurely
Bold
Mischievous
Colorful
Imaginative
Diligent
Dutiful

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Less Accurate As or More Accurate

42
 Technical Supplement

Value of Subscale Information

In terms of accuracy, coaches were asked whether they thought each HDS subscale was problematic
or added value in describing each participant. If coaches did not use information from a subscale, they
provided no response. HDS subscales added value across 27.8% of participants, ranging from 17.9%
(Leisurely, Passive Aggressive) to 44.6% (Imaginative, Special Sensitivity). Across subscales, coaches
provided no response across 69.7% of participants, ranging from 48.2% (Imaginative, Special Sensitivity)
to 80.4% (Leisurely, Passive Aggressive). HDS subscales were rated as problematic for only 2.5% of
participants, ranging from 0.0% (Cautious, Avoidant and Fearful; Mischievous, Manipulative; Diligent,
Perfectionistic) to 8.9% (Bold, Fantasized Talent) (see Figure 10).
Figure 10. Added Value of HDS Subscale Scores in New Form

Excitable Volatile
Excitable Easily Disappointed
Excitable No Direction
Skeptical Cynical
Skeptical Mistrusting
Skeptical Grudges
Cautious Avoidant
Cautious Fearful
Cautious Unassertive
Reserved Introverted
Reserved Unsocial
Reserved Tough
Leisurely Passive Aggressive
Leisurely Unappreciated
Leisurely Irritated
Bold Entitled
Bold Overconfidence
Bold Fantasized Talent
Mischievous Risky
Mischievous Impulsive
Mischievous Manipulative
Colorful Public Confidence
Colorful Distractible
Colorful Self-Display
Imaginative Eccentric
Imaginative Special Sensitivity
Imaginative Creative Thinking
Diligent Standards
Diligent Perfectionistic
Diligent Organized
Dutiful Indecisive
Dutiful Ingratiating
Dutiful Conforming
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Problematic No Response Added Value

43
 Technical Supplement

For simplicity, we re-examined results after excluding cases where coaches did not provide responses for
a subscale. These results appear in Figure 11. Considering only cases where coaches provided ratings,
HDS subscales added value across 91.7% of participants, ranging from 75.0% (Bold, Fantasized Talent) to
100.0% (Cautious, Avoidant and Fearful; Mischievous, Manipulative; Diligent, Perfectionistic). On average,
subscales were rated as problematic for only 8.3% of participants, ranging from 0.0% (Cautious, Avoidant
and Fearful; Mischievous, Manipulative; Diligent, Perfectionistic) to 25.0% (Bold, Fantasized Talent).

Figure 11. Dichotomous Added Value of HDS Subscale Scores in New Form

Excitable Volatile
Excitable Easily Disappointed
Excitable No Direction
Skeptical Cynical
Skeptical Mistrusting
Skeptical Grudges
Cautious Avoidant
Cautious Fearful
Cautious Unassertive
Reserved Introverted
Reserved Unsocial
Reserved Tough
Leisurely Passive Aggressive
Leisurely Unappreciated
Leisurely Irritated
Bold Entitled
Bold Overconfidence
Bold Fantasized Talent
Mischievous Risky
Mischievous Impulsive
Mischievous Manipulative
Colorful Public Confidence
Colorful Distractible
Colorful Self-Display
Imaginative Eccentric
Imaginative Special Sensitivity
Imaginative Creative Thinking
Diligent Standards
Diligent Perfectionistic
Diligent Organized
Dutiful Indecisive
Dutiful Ingratiating
Dutiful Conforming
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Problematic Added Value

44
 Technical Supplement

Alignment between New HDS Form and Existing Interpretive Text

Coaches were also asked whether they thought the new HDS was poorly aligned, aligned, or well aligned
with existing interpretive information available in HDS reports. Scale scores for the new HDS were well
aligned with existing HDS reports across 57.1% of participants, ranging from 33.3% (Imaginative) to
78.8% (Leisurely). Coaches found that scale scores from the new HDS aligned with existing HDS reports
across 29.4% of participants, ranging from 15.2% (Leisurely) to 38.2% (Mischievous). Scale scores from
the new HDS were rated as poorly aligned with existing HDS reports for only 13.5% of participants across
scales, ranging from 5.7% (Diligent) to 30.8% (Imaginative) (see Figure 12).

Figure 12. Alignment Between New HDS Scale Scores and Existing HDS Reports

Excitable
Skeptical
Cautious
Reserved
Leisurely
Bold
Mischievous
Colorful
Imaginative
Diligent
Dutiful

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Poorly Aligned Aligned Well Aligned

Combining aligned and well aligned responses for purposes of simplicity, scale scores for the new HDS
were rated as aligned or well aligned with existing HDS reports for 86.5% of participants, ranging from
69.2% (Imaginative) to 94.3% (Diligent). These results are shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Dichotomous Alignment Between New HDS Scale Scores and Existing HDS Reports

Excitable
Skeptical
Cautious
Reserved
Leisurely
Bold
Mischievous
Colorful
Imaginative
Diligent
Dutiful

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Poorly Aligned Aligned or Well Aligned

45
 Technical Supplement

Expert Testimonials

Finally, coaches were asked to comment on the new form of the HDS as related to their work in providing
assessment feedback and developmental coaching. Their comments included the following:

• “As with the HPI subscales, I like the possibility of having data that can help “shade” or color the
scale interpretations and performance implications.”

• “The subscales were very helpful in discussing the results.”

• “The new subscales help me pinpoint what behaviors were appearing and to ask the correct
questions.”

• “The HDS subscale results helped me understand that the participant’s Colorful behaviors perhaps
look less like attention seeking behavior and [have] more to do with distractibility and public
confidence.”

• “Additional insights gained from subscales in areas about Dutiful, Diligent, Cautious, and Reserved
which helped in delivering the feedback.”

• “All of the subscales added insight to me and enriched the discussion with the client.”

• “Imaginative – the Special Sensitivity subscale provided a more differentiated discussion about
Imaginative expression.”

• “The subscales I checked would give greater detail into the scores on the scales and more specific
questions during the feedback session.”

• “The subscales would have allowed for more specificity in identifying behaviors.”

• “The Unappreciated subscale would have added value, as we talked about her feeling like she’s been
overlooked for a promotion to a senior level despite her performance being very strong.”

• “This participant had many elevated scores and the subscales provided added value.”

• “For this participant the subscales were very helpful because they supported the HPI subscales.”

• “I really liked the subscales with the HDS – they would enrich the discussion and ultimately be
important feedback for participants.”

• “My first exposure to the HDS subscales. Really like having this additional facet data; I think it will add
intricacy to the interpretations.”

• “Overall, I think the new version added a level of clarity in the feedback session.”

• “The extra information helps in seeing trends across the three assessments.”

• “The HDS subscales provide more focus to allow me to pinpoint a behavior instead of a broad brush.”

• “The new HDS gave me more insights into this participant’s very strong and dominating personality.”

46
 Technical Supplement

References

Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-
multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 729-750.

Campbell, D. P., Hyne, S. A., & Nilsen, D. L. (1992). Campbell Interest and Skill Survey manual.
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems, Inc.

Chan, W., Ho, R., Leung, K., Chan, D., & Yung, Y. (1999). An alternative method for evaluating congruence
coefficients with Procrustes rotation: A bootstrap procedure. Psychological Methods, 4, 378-402.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in scale development. Psychological
Assessment, 7, 309-319.

Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF fifth edition technical manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing.

Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

DeVillis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dudek, F. J. (1979). The continuing misinterpretation of the standard error of measurement. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 335-337.

Goldberg, L. R. (2008). The Eugene-Springfield Community Sample: Information Available from the
Research Participants. Oregon Research Institute Technical Report Vol. 48, No. 1. Eugene,
Oregon: Oregon Research Institute.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C.
(2006). The International Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal
of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.

Gough, H. G. (1996). CPI manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1996). Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan Personality Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2009). Hogan Development Survey manual (2nd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.

47
 Technical Supplement

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions:
Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469-477.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2007). The Hogan guide: Interpretation and use of Hogan
inventories. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

Hogan, R., & Nicholson, R. (1988). The meaning of personality test scores. American Psychologist, 43,
621-626.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York, NY: Norton.

Jackson, D. J. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment
Systems.

John, O., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical
perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research
(2nd ed.) (pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lorenzo-Seva, U., & ten Berge, J. (2006). Tucker’s Congruence Coefficient as a meaningful index of factor
similarity. Methodology, 2, 57-64.

McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Bond, M. H. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors
in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552-566.

Mulaik, S. A. (1970). The foundations of factor analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Russell, M., & Karol, D. (2002). 16PF Fifth Edition with updated norms administrator’s manual.
Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 63, 506-516.

Schönemann, P. H. (1966). A generalized solution of the orthogonal Procrustes problem. Psychometrika,

31, 1-10.

48