Understanding “Form IV” Factor E changes

Form V of the PI Behavioral Assessment

Over the course of its history, the PI Behavioral Assessment (“BA”) has undergone multiple iterations, or “forms,” of revisions. These revisions occurred in 1958, 1963, 1988, 1992 (“Form IV”), and most recently 2017 (“Form V”). These revisions were undertaken both to improve the BA’s psychometric properties (i.e., how accurately and fairly does the BA measure workplace behavior?) and to ensure that each of the individual items on the assessment conformed to appropriate and contemporary language norms. 

The work on the latest BA revision, Form V, began in the fall of 2014 and was released in January 2017. The most recent revision resulted in a more accurate measurement of personality, resolved some statistical artifacts, and reflected societal changes in word usage. Importantly, this version also resolved the complicated nature of how Factor E was measured.

Factor E and Form V

Factor E, or Objectivity, measures the degree to which an individual relies on objectivity when processing information and making decisions. Objectivity is referred to as a secondary or modifying factor describing a respondent’s decision-making style in the expression of the four primary factors. It is used as a secondary measure because it is not part of the theoretical behavioral model that underpins the primary factors. It was added in the development of the original form of the PI Behavioral Assessment because decision-making style was seen as a valuable insight to understand the context of employees’ behavior (i.e., how they decided to take an action, regardless of their behavioral style). 

Historically, Factor E has only been reported in the Synthesis domain for the PI Behavioral Assessment, and was omitted from the Self and Self Concept charts because in the previous version of the assessment, Form IV, E was not measured independently. Instead, it was derived by “double loading” some items on the assessment, meaning some adjectives contributed to, for example, both Factors D and E, Factors C and E, and so on. Because it was not measured independently in Form IV, Factor E was only stable as a measure when aggregated in the Synthesis score (i.e., the combination of Self and Self Concept).

When Form V of the assessment was developed, Factor E was transitioned to be measured as an independent construct with its own adjectives. The PI Science team worked to eliminate the double loading and validate adjectives that solely measure Objectivity. Making E independent addressed the issue of E only being a stable measure at the Synthesis level. In the current form, E can be interpreted at both the Self and Self Concept levels, just like all of the other behavioral factors. 

Factor E in PI2

Because the most recent form of the Behavioral Assessment measures E independently, Self and Self Concept E scores are now displayed in PI2. Furthermore, the Synthesis chart has been sunsetted from the software, as it offers little interpretive value that isn’t already provided by the Self and Self Concept.

This introduces a complication for respondents who completed a Form IV assessment. Although their E scores are only stable for interpretation at the Synthesis level, they now have access to view their scores at the Self and Self Concept levels. A cautionary note will be displayed in the software for these respondents explaining that the way Objectivity is measured has changed since they last took the assessment. 

Factor E should not be used for hiring and is most commonly utilized in coaching scenarios. So, users who have taken a Form IV assessment should be careful about the way in which they apply and interpret E scores. In the absence of the Synthesis, users may consider viewing both Self and Self Concept E scores, identifying the average between those scores, and utilizing that representation to discuss or learn more about their unique level of objectivity.

Re-taking the Behavioral Assessment

We realize that some may wonder whether or not respondents with Form IV assessment results need to retake the assessment as a result of Factor E not being stable for interpretation at the Self or Self Concept levels. 

The decision of whether or not to retake the assessment is personal and depends on a variety of factors. Here are some factors that one might consider before deciding to retake the Behavioral Assessment:

• Is the assessment more than six years old? Our research indicates that results should remain stable for a period of up to six years. However, personality tends to be a fairly stable construct and does not change a lot over the course of adulthood. If a respondent starts to feel as though their results are out of date or no longer apply, they may want to retake the assessment.
• Do the results still resonate? If the assessment results are several years old and the respondent no longer feels like results resonate, they may want to consider retaking the assessment. Again, adult work-related personality is a stable construct, but can slowly evolve over time as a result of unique events or experiences. 
• Is the respondent applying for a new role? If one’s assessment results are several years old and they are applying to a new role, they should consider retaking the assessment. Because there is a high-stakes decision being made regarding one’s candidacy, the respondent should have the opportunity to take the assessment at that moment in time just like any other candidates being considered. 

Again, if one’s behavioral results and insights still resonate, then retaking the assessment may not be necessary unless this person is applying to a new role. Review this article for more information on retaking the assessment.