Explain the conclusions and arguments that Ones et al. (2007) made in response to the Morgeson et al. (2007) criticisms of personality testing. According to the authors, what are the primary arguments in support of using personality tests in selection? use the conclusion and arguments below to answer the question

Ones et al. (2007)

1. Personality variables, as measured by self-reports, have substantial validities, which has been established in several quantitative reviews of hundreds of peer-reviewed research studies. 2. Vote counting and qualitative opinions are scientically inferior alternatives to quantitative reviews and psychometric meta-analysis. 3. Self reports of personality, in large applicant samples and actual selection setting (where faking is often purported to distort responses),have yielded substantial validities even for externally obtained (e.g., supervisory ratings, detected counter productive behaviors) and/orobjective criteria (e.g., production records). 4. Faking does not ruin the criterion-related or construct validity of personality scores in applied settings. 5. Other noncognitive predictors may derive their validity from capturing relevant personality trait variance. 6. Customized tests are not necessarily superior to traditional standardized personality tests. 7. When feasible, utilizing both self and observer ratings of personality likely produces validities that are comparable to the most valid selection measures. 8. Proposed palliatives(e.g., conditional reasoning, forced choice ipsative measures), when critically reviewed, do not currently offer viable alternatives to traditional self-report personality inventories.

Morgeson et al. (2007)

(a) Faking on self-report personality tests should be expected, and it probably cannot be avoided, although there is some disagreement among the authors on the extent to which faking is problematic. (b) Faking or the ability to fake may not always be bad. In fact, it may be job-related or at least socially adaptive in some situations. (c) Corrections for faking do not appear to improve validity. However, the use of bogus items maybe a potentially useful way of identifying fakers. (d) We must not forget that personality tests have very low validity for predicting overall job performance. Some of the highest reported validities in the literature are potentially inated due to extensive corrections or methodological weaknesses. (e) Due to the low validity and content of some items, many published self-report personality tests should probably not be used for personnel selection. Some are better than others, of course, and when those better personality tests are combined with cognitive ability tests, in many cases validity is likely to be greater than when either is used separately. (f) If personality tests are used, customized personality measures that are clearly job-related in face valid ways might be more easily explained to both candidates and organizations. (g) Future research might focus on areas of the criterion domain that are likely to be more predictable by personality measures. (h) Personality constructs certainly have value in understanding work behavior, but future research should focus on nding alternatives to self report personality measures. There is some disagreement among the authors in terms of the future potential of the alternative approaches to personality assessment currently being pursued.