DEVELOPMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL PERSONALITY INVENTORY

PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

Volume: 23
Issue 10
Pages: 1303-1311
Document ID: 2024PEMJ2234
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13353470
Manuscript Accepted: 08-02-2024
 Psych Educ, 2024, 23(10): 1303-1311, Document ID:2024PEMJ2234, doi:10.5281/zenodo.13353470, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Development of Occupational Personality Inventory

Jo Marie Brun-Osongco*
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.
Abstract
This study developed an Occupational Personality Inventory (OPI). Specifically, it answered and accomplished the
following objectives: (1) To construct items of the proposed Occupational Personality Inventory based on literature
and studies. (2) To establish the validity of the proposed Occupational Personality Inventory by: (1.1) Face Validity
and (2.2) Content Analysis. (3) To establish the reliability of the proposed Occupational Personality Inventory by Test
Re-Test Design. (4) To establish a standardization process of the proposed Occupational Personality Inventory.
Research and Development (R&D) was the research method used in the study. Most of the items were found valid
after it underwent experts’ face validation and Lawshe’s content validity method. The items garnered an excellent
reliability using test re-test method. A manual was made for the uniformity of administration of the test and consistent
scoring of the inventory to guarantee the standardization process. The study's findings led to the conclusions that the
items of the created Occupational Personality Inventory evaluated and represented various occupational personalities
of the employees; employees were discriminated against based on their occupational personalities according to the
items in the scale; every item in the inventory met statistical validity requirements; and the reliability index of the OPI
is excellent.
Keywords: validity, reliability, standardization

Introduction
Personality is referred to as the enduring traits and behaviours that comprise an individual's subjective way of adjusting to life.
Individuals have distinct personalities from birth. We are all unique from one another, which is what gives every one of us a unique
quality. The result of environment and heredity—and their regular interactions—is personality. It is the primary reason for individual
variations.
Personality is a huge factor in our lives. Personality differences are related to both physical and mental health in terms of well-being.
People who score higher on some personality traits and lower on others seem to be in better form, from how content people are with
their lives at any given time to matters of life and death. People spend a significant portion of their lives in relationships, therefore
socially relevant personality qualities like agreeableness and extroversion are important. Thus, it makes sense that a person's unique
personality traits could play a role in determining how well they get along with their romantic partner. Personality traits seem to have
a bearing on more traditional types of performance in the realm of success, even if they don't necessarily correlate with longevity and
romantic fulfillment. Science has found correlations between people's characteristics and achievements in a variety of domains,
including income, job preferences, and grades. Every individual has a unique personality, and people are always attempting to read
each other (Damian, 2018).
According to Edelstein (2009), personality is also related to one’s appearance. Personality cues can be seen in clothing, facial
expressions, and other outward features. For example, smiling and having a lively appearance could indicate that someone is rather
outgoing. Appearing well and at ease could suggest emotional stability. According to some psychologists, having distinct eyebrows
could be a sign of grandiose narcissism. Psychologists have also discovered evidence linking personality traits to one's environment to
some extent. For example, exhibiting a variety of literature was linked to more openness to experience, while having an ordered
bedroom was linked to conscientiousness.
Employees with their personality known, also look at their career growth and success. One must know how to fit himself in the
workplace considering his personality to reach his goals and aspirations. He must be aware of his characteristics and behavior because
he is the controller of it.
A person's personality influences every facet of their performance, including their response to work-related issues. It's crucial to identify
personality traits and match workers with tasks that best suit their personalities because not every personality is a good fit for every job
position. This can lead to increased productivity and job satisfaction, helping your business function more efficiently (Munroe, 2019).
According to research by Dr. Blaine Landis (2020), understanding one’s personality can help an employee modify behavior at work,
play to strengths, improve on weaknesses, interact with coworkers more effectively and ultimately lead to career success. Career success
is strongly influenced by one's personality. For a variety of reasons, personality matters. Fit—how well a person's personality fits the
position, the team, and the business as a whole—is one factor. One of the main reasons for conflict and turnover is poor fit. A person's
personality will influence a variety of outcomes, including being employed, promoted, derailed, helping others, and perceived as a
leader. Understanding various personality qualities helps foster professional development and improve managers' interactions with
staff members.

Jo Marie Brun-Osongco 1303/1311

 Psych Educ, 2024, 23(10): 1303-1311, Document ID:2024PEMJ2234, doi:10.5281/zenodo.13353470, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

an employee’s, more studies are being conducted to answer the question of how an employee’s personality greatly affects work
performance. It is still a question of what kind of personality type an employee has so he can suit it best with his work performance.
These claims gave the researcher the idea to conduct a study and encouraged her to look into the topic more. It also spurs her to create
a test specifically for Filipino workers, whose personalities have a big impact on how well they do at work. And it necessitates starting
the process of creating an Employee Occupational Personality Inventory.
Completing an Occupational Personality Inventory can help one see how personality and work performance are based on various,
objective theories rather than being evaluated subjectively. It will give workers an overview of their personality kinds. Their dominating
personality will be dichotomously illustrated by posing a series of questions and then rating the answers. They will be better able to
identify and comprehend their own personalities and apply methods that work best for them. This raises the standard and effectiveness
of work output.
Employees’ personality has more influence in work than they may realize. Their dominant personality guides the way they perform at
work and how they socialize at work.
The creation of this exam will open the door for a practical tool to be used in the workplace, one that can predict job performance and
fit between the employer and candidates. The test will solicit information about employees’ characteristics and behavior- their style of
interacting with people and situations, emotional make-up, interests, preferences, and motivations. The result of the test will be
beneficial in suiting the applicant’s personality for a specific job- increasing employee satisfaction and efficiency and reducing the
company’s turnover rate. This is Tarlac City's first personality test, created as a pre-employment tool to help companies match the
appropriate candidate with the right position and to help candidates find the position that best fits them. This will also contribute to the
Province of Tarlac's declining unemployment rate.
As it evaluates various occupational personalities, the study, according to the researcher, will be beneficial to psychology in general
and the industrial setting in particular since it will provide a foundation for creating strategies and programs that are most appropriate
for the workers. Additionally, the researcher thinks that this study will serve as a tool for a deeper comprehension of human
undertakings and advance both our industry and individual advancement.
Research Objectives
This research aimed to develop an Occupational Personality Inventory. It specifically sought to answer and accomplish the following
objectives:
1. To construct items of the proposed Occupational Personality Inventory based on literature and studies.
2. To establish the validity of the proposed Occupational Personality Inventory by:
2.1. Face Validity
2.2. Content Analysis
3. To establish the reliability of the proposed Occupational Personality Inventory by Test Re-Test Design.
4. To establish a standardization process of the proposed Occupational Personality Inventory.
Literature Review
Personality has to do with individual differences among people in behavior patterns, cognition and emotion. Personality can be
conceptualized using personality traits. Personality traits are enduring personal characteristics that are revealed in a particular pattern
of behavior in a variety of situations. Personality has a significant impact on behavior so on performance of individual in any domain.
There are many organizational parameters like job performance, job satisfaction, leadership qualities etc. where personality traits play
a significant role. Various national and international research papers conceptualize personality and personality traits and those which
establish relationship between personality traits and performance. Wide parameters like job performance, job satisfaction, leadership,
employability etc. are always taken into consideration. Most articles show that conscientiousness and emotional stability consistently
predict job performance for all job types. In addition, some have suggested that personality is useful for predicting other work-related
criteria, like job satisfaction and job performance (Khan, 2017).
Personality traits are aspects of personality that are relatively stable over time, differ across individuals and are relatively consistent
over situations (Anusic & Schimmack, 2016). Probably the most common framework to the research of personality traits is the Big
Five. The Big Five trait taxonomy is a hierarchical model of personality traits with five broad factors, which represent personality at
the broadest level of abstraction. These factors are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. Each factor describes a broad domain of psychological functioning that is composed from a set of more specific
and narrow traits (Roberts et al, 2006). Several scholars have argued that personality traits, processes and behaviors should be separated
from each other in order to increase our understanding of how personality explains behaviors (Baumert et al, 2017; Zeigler-Hill et al,
2019). In this perspective, personality traits can be seen as basic tendencies or general predispositions, largely controlled by biological
influences (McCrae & Costa, 2008; McCrae, 2018). In contrast, motivational processes, such as preferences, as well as subsequent
behaviors, represent the interaction between personality traits and the specifics of the social context. As such, processes and behaviors

Jo Marie Brun-Osongco 1304/1311

 Psych Educ, 2024, 23(10): 1303-1311, Document ID:2024PEMJ2234, doi:10.5281/zenodo.13353470, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

give contextualized form to what it means to possess certain relatively broad and abstract personality traits (Cantor, 1990; McAdams
& Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 2008; Wood et al, 2015; McCrae, 2018). Preferences, therefore, can be seen as being a consequence
of inherent personality traits. These preferences will, in turn, affect a person’s behavior. Specifically, an individual’s behavioral displays
are expected to follow the law of effect: a certain behavior increases when it satisfies a person’s needs and desires, and a certain
behavior decreases when it does not (Wood et al, 2015). That is, a certain behavior will be displayed more often if that behavior is
congruent with a person’s preferences (Christiansen & Tett, 2008). All in all, one could argue that personality traits affect a person’s
preferences, and that these preferences will guide that person’s behavior in such a way that it will be beneficial and satisfying to the
person.
Personality is not an excuse for poor performance, but managers can use what they know about a direct report’s personality to create
growth opportunities and get more out of the employee. Employees and managers can use what they know about their personalities to
discuss opportunities for changing the nature of a worker’s tasks, providing team-building opportunities and placing employees in
optimal positions that allow them to thrive. It can give you insights to have those conversations, so you can anticipate where they may
want to make changes so that everyone is successful. It is in managers’ best interests to incorporate a range of personalities on their
teams. And understanding the nuances of different personalities can help managers bring out the best in their workers (Landis, 2020).
Psychological distress in the workplace is usually attributed to work-related variables (i.e. physical and psychological demands,
irregular schedules, and workplace harassment) and non-work-related variables (i.e. family structure, support available from social
networks outside of work). Even though work-related variables could be stressful, their effect does not seem to uniformly affect all
workers. Individuals working in the same organization could differ in terms of their appraisal of work demands and in coping strategies
used to face them. Based on those individual differences, high job demands may not necessarily result in job strain for all workers. For
instance, conscientiousness and neuroticism are both important personality traits. Additionally, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
openness and emotional stability (also termed high neuroticism) moderated the negative impact of a high workload (Saade et al., 2021).
In the past decade, important advances have taken place in the study of the role of personality in predicting work performance. First,
the accumulation of research on personality contributed to the development of a taxonomy, the Big Five, which makes essential
personality characteristics clearer. Second, psychometrically sound tools for assessing personality in the work place and for analyzing
jobs in terms of necessary personality traits have been developed. In parallel, a more systematic consideration of work requirements
and a better understanding of factors important for work performance have allowed for a clearer definition of the potential roles for
personality in this context (Touze, 2015).
Healthy and motivated employees are essential for the productivity and success of a company and for reducing financial burden on the
health care system and society. Consequently, research and practice aim to define and create healthy and motivating work environments
in which employees get what they need to thrive in their work. Indeed, employees are well-suited for and perform best in their work if
it fulfils basic human needs, such as the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In addition to these
basic needs, employees also have unique needs related to their personality and values (Van Vianen, Hamstra, & Koen, 2016). Person-
Environment fit theory (Van Vianen, 2018) proposes that people have an innate need to fit environments that match their own
characteristics. A specific work environment can be thriving for one employee and oppressing for another, depending on an employee’s
personality (Herr et al, 2021).
Depending on a person’s traits, some career roles will seem more attractive and desirable than others. If a certain career role is preferred,
people will start to behave in a way that will allow them to engage in that role. Engaging in the role is likely to be intrinsically satisfying,
because people are likely to feel good about being able to express their traits in their work environments. Arguably, certain roles allow
people to express their traits more than others. Therefore, although restrictions by external demands or expectations can always occur,
in general people’s preferences will influence their role-taking behavior or their role enactment (Parker et al., 2010; De Jong et al,
2014).
The test's item building will be based on the identification of personality traits related to work performance, which will be achieved by
merging the many theories and concepts of the scholars previously mentioned. Moreover, it will help achieve the goals of the entire
research project.
Methodology
Participants
The participants for this study were white collar job workers with age ranges from eighteen (18) to sixty (60) years old taken from
samples that was determined through stratified convenient sampling. This study is limited only to the employees of Classic Baker
Corporation during the year 2023- 2024. The total population of the white collared workers was one hundred sixty (160) employees.
Sixty (60) employees were subjected to test re-test of the validated initial inventory. One hundred (100) employees underwent the test
re-test of the final inventory. All were eighteen (18) to sixty (60) years old at the time of testing.

Jo Marie Brun-Osongco 1305/1311

 Psych Educ, 2024, 23(10): 1303-1311, Document ID:2024PEMJ2234, doi:10.5281/zenodo.13353470, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Instrument
The Development of the Occupational Personality Inventory underwent processes such as development, validation, reliability testing,
and standardization. The development was done with the expertise of the subject-matter experts; face validity and Lawshe’s content
validity were used in validation; for reliability, the researcher used test re-test using Pearson Coefficient of Correlation; and for
standardization, to ensure the uniformity of procedure, a manual was created for the administration and scoring of the inventory.
Development
The test items for the initial edition of the questionnaire were created by the researchers based on their own experiences as well as a
review of relevant studies, theories, and literature. The Occupational Personality Inventory's sections were developed before the
inventory's items were created. The Occupational Personality Inventory's initial formulation involved extracting its sections from many
relevant theories, studies, and literature. The developed regions of personality served as the foundation for the test structures. It was
assessed by specialists. Along with the first inventory, each expert offered recommendations. They selected the items they thought best
reflected the traits or indicators found in the Occupational Personality Inventory. Blank slots were included at the end of the checklist
so that the experts could add any new traits or recommendations.
Items were adjusted, improved, and reorganized following the experts' review of the first inventory and the completion of the content
validity ratio. The inventory was then put through a test-retest procedure. Subsequently, the items were ranked in order of validity and
reliability. To assess the final inventory's dependability, it underwent one more test and retest. The researcher then created a handbook
to instruct the examiners on how to administer and interpret the test.
Validation
Face Validity and Content Validity
Items were put in a table of specifications for the first draft of the inventory to make sure they were adequate or sufficient in each
personality domain. Every item was categorized in a dichotomous fashion based on the ten (10) personality domains to which it was
represented. Twenty-five (25) items total are included in each dichotomous domain (extraversion versus introversion, neuroticism
versus stability, sensing versus intuition, judging versus perceiving, and extrinsic versus intrinsic). Experts evaluated the included items
for face and content validity to make necessary corrections and improvements to the test items. Items that were deemed irrelevant were
removed, and relevant items were added at the experts' or evaluators' suggestion based on the Lawshe’s content validity method. Valid
items were incorporated into the second draft of the test. Furthermore, the Occupational Personality Inventory's structure, page layout,
and guidelines were changed to better serve the target audience. The inventory then moved forward for testing.
Reliability
Test-retest reliability was applied to the second draft, and the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation was utilized to gauge its quality.
Reliability-tested items were added to the inventory's final draft. Using the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation, the finalized draft's
reliability was tested and retested.
Standardization
The researcher developed a manual to introduce occupational personality to both the test administrator and the respondents to ensure
consistency in the methods used to administer and score the proposed Occupational Personality Inventory for employees. The produced
examiner's handbook was turned in to be tested for substance, economy, administrability, usability, and scorability.
Ethical Considerations
The following ethical guidelines were observed and prioritized for the research period:
• The respondents gave their free will to participate in the study. The study participants are free to leave at any time if they want.
• Prior to the study, the subjects gave their full consent. This required the researcher to offer participants enough information and
guarantees about the study so they could comprehend the ramifications of taking part and make an informed, deliberate, and free
choice about whether to participate, free from coercion or pressure.
• The data and information that were obtained from the participants were treated with utmost confidentiality.
• There was no harm done to research participants in any way.
• All research-related communications were conducted in an open and sincere manner, and false information will not be shared.
Results and Discussion
Development of Occupational Personality Inventory based on Literature and Studies
The investigator conducted a thorough examination and analysis of various studies and literature about occupational personality. These
included the written works, theoretical frameworks, and empirical studies that made a substantial contribution to the creation of the
Occupational Personality Inventory. These provided as the foundation and guidelines for creating the inventory's objects. One hundred

Jo Marie Brun-Osongco 1306/1311

 Psych Educ, 2024, 23(10): 1303-1311, Document ID:2024PEMJ2234, doi:10.5281/zenodo.13353470, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

twenty-five (125) items in all were created using relevant studies and literature as a basis. Books, journals, research studies, and the
internet were the sources of this connected literature and studies. The collected data served as a valuable resource for the researcher
during the conduct and enhancement of the investigation.
Initial Inventory
Every item in the first inventory fit into a single statement. Five dichotomous domains are included in the initial form of the test:
Extroversion vs. Introversion, Sensing vs. Intuition, Judging vs. Perceiving, Stability vs. Neuroticism, and Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic
Motivation. There are twenty-five (25) items in the test's initial draft for each dichotomous domain. In summary, the initial draft of the
Occupational Personality measured a total of one hundred twenty-five (125) elements. Local conditions were taken into consideration
while modifying items from occupational personality study. Similarly, the researcher created other items with an objective foundation
from literature.
Table 1. Sources of Items
Initial Inventory
Domains of Learning Preference Sources of Items Total
Schedule Items
Related Literature Related
Studies
Extraversion vs. Introversion 1, 11, 26, 31, 36, 41, 46, 51, 61, 66, 71, 76, 81, 86, 91, 96, 6, 16, 21, 56 25
a. Extraversion Statements 101, 106, 111, 116, 121
b. Introversion Statements
Stability vs. Neuroticism 2, 7, 12, 17, 27, 32, 42, 47, 52, 57, 67, 72, 77, 87, 92, 97, 102, 22, 37, 62, 25
a. Stability Statements 107, 112, 117, 122 82
b. Neuroticism Statements
Sensory vs. Intuition 3, 8, 18, 23 33, 38, 48, 53, 58, 63, 68, 73, 78, 83, 88, 93, 98, 13, 28, 43 25
a. Sensory Statements 103, 108, 113, 118, 23
b. Intuition Statements
Judging vs. Perceiving 4, 9, 14, 19, 24, 29, 34, 44, 49, 54, 59, 64, 69, 79, 84, 89, 94, 39, 74 25
a. Judging Statements 99, 104, 109, 114, 119, 124
b. Perceiving Statements
Extrinsic Motivation vs. Intrinsic 5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, 45, 50, 55, 60, 70, 75, 85, 90, 95, 100, 15, 40, 65, 25
Motivation 105, 110, 115, 120, 125 80
a. Extrinsic Statements
b. Intrinsic Statements
Grand Total 108 17 125

Occupational Personality Inventory components are displayed in Table 1. Eighty-eight (108) items from relevant literature and
seventeen (17) items from related studies were collected. In summary, a total of one hundred twenty-five (125) items were utilized in
the first inventory.
Table 2. Initial Inventory and Distribution of Items
Questions Domains
1 I am inspired to learn when EX-IN
a. People are literally around me Extraversion
b. People are not around me Introversion
2 In accomplishing my task, ST-NE
a. I know that my efforts will produce good results Stability
b. I am in doubt if my efforts will be counted Neuroticism
3 I like SE-IN
a. To use established ways of doing things Sensing
b. To create new ways of doing things Intuition
4 When someone disagrees with my decision JU-PE
a. I find it uncomfortable Judging
b. I find it fine Perceiving
5 My purpose for work is to EM-IM
a. Earn money and buy stuffs Extrinsic Motivation
b. Learn new skills and gain experience Intrinsic Motivation
---Sample Items Only---

Table 2 shows the initial inventory and the distribution of items of the Occupational Personality Inventory per dichotomous domain.
The initial inventory is composed of one hundred twenty-five (125) items. There were five (5) dichotomous domains in the initial
inventory. The Extraversion vs. Introversion was comprised of twenty-five (25) items, Stability vs. Neuroticism has twenty-five (25)
items, Sensing vs. Intuition has twenty-five (25) items, judging vs. Perceiving has twenty-five (25) items, and the Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic
Motivation was composed of twenty-five (25) items. In the first inventory, each dichotomous item was distributed in turn. Extraversion
vs. Introversion was the first item in the distribution sequence, followed by Stability vs. Neuroticism, Sensing vs. Intuition, Judging
Jo Marie Brun-Osongco 1307/1311
 Psych Educ, 2024, 23(10): 1303-1311, Document ID:2024PEMJ2234, doi:10.5281/zenodo.13353470, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

vs. Perceiving, and Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation. Every item in the first inventory was arranged in the same, alternate order.
Validation of the Inventory
Following the creation of the Occupational Personality Inventory's first inventory, which had 125 items overall, the validation process
was used. What a test was supposed to measure was measured by its validity. During the validation process, the researcher employed
text analysis and face validation.
Face Validity
Following finalization, the items in each region of the inventory were allocated and placed appropriately. Expert recommendations
were incorporated for the item placement. The items' apparent ability to measure what they were supposed to was determined using
face validity.
To ensure an appropriate and suitable arrangement of the components, a table detailing the requirements for every domain of
occupational personality was created.
Table 3. Table of Specification of the Initial Inventory
Occupational Personality Item Number Total
Extraversion vs. Extraversion 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36, 41, 46, 51, 56, 61, 66, 71, 76, 81, 86, 25
Introversion Statements 91, 96, 101, 106, 111, 116, 121
Introversion
Statements
Stability vs. Stability Statements 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, 27, 32, 37, 42, 47, 52, 57, 62, 67, 72, 77, 82, 87, 25
Neuroticism b. Neuroticism 92, 97, 102, 107, 112, 117, 122
Statements
Sensory Sensory Statements 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33, 38, 43, 48, 53, 58, 63, 68, 73, 78, 83, 88,
vs. Intuition Statements 93, 98, 103, 108, 113, 118, 23 25
Intuition
Judging Judging Statements 4, 9, 14, 19, 24, 29, 34, 39, 44, 49, 54, 59, 64, 69, 74, 79, 84, 89, 25
vs. b. Perceiving 94, 99, 104, 109, 114, 119, 124
Perceiving Statements
Extrinsic a. Extrinsic 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 25
vs. Statements 95, 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125
Intrinsic Motivation b. Intrinsic
Statements
Total Number of Items 125

Twenty-five (25) items for Extraversion vs. Introversion, twenty-five (25) for Stability vs. Neuroticism, twenty-five (25) for Sensory
vs. Intuition, twenty-five (25) for Judging vs. Perceiving, and twenty-five (25) for Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation make up the first
inventory of the Occupational Personality Inventory, which is displayed in Table 3. For the face and content authenticity, this was
employed.
The Content Validity Ratio was utilized to ascertain the validity. The legitimate items that were kept and the invalid things that were
removed were distinguished using CVR.
Content Validity
Following the face validation procedure, Lawshe’s content validity was applied to the items. Each dichotomous domain item was
assessed by the experts from three (3) to one (1). Three (3) points meant something was vital, two (2) said something was helpful but
not essential, and one (1) meant something was not essential. To distinguish between valid and invalid items in the content analysis,
the researcher employed the content validity ratio (CVR). The effectiveness with which a concept addressed each of the pertinent
domains that it was intended to measure was assessed by the content analysis.
Following the completion of the content validity ratio, the valid and invalid items are displayed in Table 4. Twenty (20) of the items
were valid for comparing extraversion and introversion; fourteen (14) were valid for comparing neuroticism and stability; twenty (20)
were valid for comparing intuition and sensory perception; sixteen (16) were valid for comparing judging and perceiving; and fourteen
(14) were valid for comparing extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation. Eighty-four (84) legitimate goods in total made up the first
inventory. In general, the inventory's domains measure the things they are designed to measure.
The distribution of elements by domain in the final scale is displayed in Table 4. The Occupational Personality Inventory contained
five (5) distinct dichotomous domains (OPI). These include judging versus perceiving, sensory versus intuition, stability versus
neuroticism, extraversion versus introversion, and extrinsic versus intrinsic drive.

Jo Marie Brun-Osongco 1308/1311

 Psych Educ, 2024, 23(10): 1303-1311, Document ID:2024PEMJ2234, doi:10.5281/zenodo.13353470, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Table 4. Content Validity Ratio

Occupational Personality Valid Items Invalid Items Total Number of
Inventory Valid Items
Extraversion vs. 6, 11, 21, 31, 36, 41, 46, 51, 56, 61, 66, 76, 1, 16, 26, 71, 91 20
Introversion 81, 86, 96, 101, 106, 111, 116, 121
Stability vs. Neuroticism 2, 7, 12, 27, 32, 42, 67, 77, 82, 92, 97, 102, 17, 22, 37, 47, 52, 57, 62, 14
117, 122 72, 87, 107, 112
Sensory vs. Intuition 3, 8, 13, 28, 38, 43, 53, 58, 63, 68, 73, 78, 18, 23, 33, 48, 123 20
83, 88, 93, 98, 103, 108, 113, 118
Judging vs. Perceiving 9, 34, 44, 49, 54, 64, 69, 74, 79, 84, 89, 99, 4, 14, 19, 24, 29, 39, 59, 16
104, 109, 114, 119 94, 124
Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 50, 65, 70, 75, 80, 90, 95, 10, 20, 30, 40, 55, 60, 85, 14
Motivation 100, 115 105, 110, 120, 125
Total 84

Reliability Test
The second draft of the test was completed following the completion of the face validity and content analysis of the first inventory. The
legitimate things were kept and the invalid ones were removed. Each dichotomous domain had fourteen (14) valid items included to
ensure uniformity in the amount of items. Test re-test reliability was applied to the test's second draft. The test-retest design involved
giving the same test to the same set of people twice to determine whether a construct was trustworthy over an extended period of time.
Table 5. Reliability Index of the OPI
Occupational Personality Inventory Domains Test-Retest Reliability Test-Retest Reliability Interpretation
(Second Draft) (Final Inventory)
Extraversion vs. Introversion 0.996 0.986 Excellent Reliability
Stability vs. Neuroticism 0.995 0.938 Excellent Reliability
Sensory vs. Intuition 0.994 0.949 Excellent Reliability
Judging vs. Perceiving 0.989 0.967 Excellent Reliability
Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation 0.995 0.917 Excellent Reliability

Table 5 demonstrates how a test-retest design was used to assess the second draft of the inventory's reliability. With a reliability index
of 0.996, the extraversion vs. introversion comparison shows good dependability. With a reliability index of 0.995, the Stability vs.
Neuroticism shows great reliability. With a reliability index of 0.994, Sensing vs. Intuition is shown to have great reliability. With a
dependability value of 0.989, the Judging vs. Perceiving has very good reliability. With a reliability rating of 0.905, the extrinsic vs.
intrinsic motivation is highly reliable. vs. Intrinsic Motivation has a reliability index of 0.905 indicating excellent reliability.
Retest testing was used to determine the final draft of the inventory's dependability after the second draft's reliability was established.
In terms of extraversion against introversion, stability versus neuroticism, sensing versus intuition, judging versus perceiving, and
extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation, the final draft's dependability indexes are 0.986, 0.938, 0.949, and 0.967, respectively. which all
demonstrated outstanding dependability. A person with excellent reliability will see consistent results over time. Since the second draft
and final inventory of the Occupational Personality Inventory has an excellent reliability index, this means that it will yield the same
results over time.
Table 6. Final Inventory
Final Inventory Domains
When the trainer is discussing, EX-IN
1 a. I discuss it with my seatmate too Extroversion
b. I process it in my mind by myself Introversion
In accomplishing my task, ST-NE
2 a. I know that my efforts will produce good results Stability
b. I am in doubt if my efforts will be counted Neuroticism
I like SE-IN
3 a. To use established ways of doing things Sensing
b. To create new ways of doing things Intuition
When I wake up in the morning JU-PE
4 a. I will organize my tasks for the day Judging
b. I will start my day and see how it goes Perceiving
My purpose for work is to EM-IM
5 a. Earn money and buy stuffs Extrinsic Motivation
b. Learn new skills and gain experience Intrinsic Motivation
---Sample Items Only---

Jo Marie Brun-Osongco 1309/1311

 Psych Educ, 2024, 23(10): 1303-1311, Document ID:2024PEMJ2234, doi:10.5281/zenodo.13353470, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

The distribution of items in the final draft of the Occupational Personality Inventory by dichotomous domain is displayed in Table 6.
There are seventy (70) things in the final inventory. The final inventory contained five (5) dichotomous domains. There were fourteen
(14) items in the Extraversion vs. Introversion, fourteen (14) in the Stability vs. Neuroticism, fourteen (14) in the Sensing vs. Intuition,
fourteen (14) in the Judging vs. Perceiving, and fourteen (14) in the Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation. Each dichotomous item was
distributed alternately in the final inventory. In the final inventory, each dichotomous item was distributed alternately. Extraversion vs.
Introversion was the first item in the distribution sequence, followed by Stability vs. Neuroticism, sensing vs. Intuition, Judging vs.
Perceiving, and Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation. Every item in the first inventory was arranged in the same, alternate order.
Standardization
Following the finalization of the test items, a manual with instructions and protocols for the appropriate administration, scoring, and
interpretation of the test was created for the proctor or examiner. The test booklet mirrored the final inventory, which was included in
the OPI manual. It also provided information on the test administration process, including timing, materials needed, pre-, during-, and
post-test procedures, as well as manual scoring. The uniform administration and consistent scoring of the inventory were guaranteed
by the standardization process.
Conclusions
The study's findings led to the following conclusions being made:
• The items of the created Occupational Personality Inventory evaluated the occupational personalities of Classic Baker
Corporation personnel and represented various occupational personalities.
• Employees were discriminated against based on their occupational personalities according to the items in the scale.
• Every item in the inventory met statistical validity requirements.
• The reliability index of the Occupational Personality Inventory (OPI) is very good.
References
Ajel, Rivera & Tejero. (2015). Isang Sikolohikal na Pag-aaral sa Pagkapikon. Tarlac State University
Bagalayos, Millo & Tabamo. (2015). Jobs Mismatch: Its Effect and Challenges in the Workplace. Tarlac State University
BaImores, Reyes @ Villanueva. (2012). Construction and Validation of Tagasalo Personality Inventory Scale CIPIS). Tarlac State
University
Buerck, Malmstrom & Peppers. (2003). Learning Environments and Learning Styles: Non-traditional Student Enrollment and Success
in an Internet-based Versus a Lecture-based Computer Science
Butler, P. & Pinto-Zipp, FAD. (2015). Students` Learning Styles and Their Preferences for Online Instructional Methods
Cain, S. (2013). Quiet the Power of Introverts in a Word that Can't Stop Talking
Cheng Zhihong. (2011). Theory and Practice in Language Studies
Cristobal, Lubis & Silva. (2013). Development of Skills Inventory for Leadership Potentials (S112). Tarlac State University
De Guzman, Silvestro & Tolentino. (2012). Development of Children's Drawing and Thinking Test (CDTCT). Tarlac State University
Falcon, A. (2015). Aristotle on Causally
Felder, Richard M. (2009). Learning Styles and Strategies
Ferris, Dana. (2012). TESOL Quarterly
Franzoni, Andi Lidia. (2005). Adaptation Method based on Teaching Strategies and Electronic Media
Garcia, Serrano & Soliman. (2005). The Effects of Sleep Deprivation in Cognitive and Motor Aspects among Selected Students of
Tarlac State University. Tarlac State University
Gordon, Lesilie. (2016). ABA Journal
Hauer Patrick; Straub, Christina & Wolf Steven. (2005). Journal of Allied Health
Honey and Mumford Alan. (2006). Learning Styles.
Honey, P. & Munfoni, Alan. (2006). Kolb's Learning Styles
Hughes, Martin. (2002). Two Ways to Focus Your Study
Katznelson, Ira & Weinsact, Barry. (2005). Preferences and Situations

Jo Marie Brun-Osongco 1310/1311

 Psych Educ, 2024, 23(10): 1303-1311, Document ID:2024PEMJ2234, doi:10.5281/zenodo.13353470, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Kayaoglu, N. (2013). Impact of Extroversion and Introversion on Language. Society for Personality Research
Keighin. (2009). URJHS European Journal Personality
Lane, C. (2000). The Distance Learning Tecbbhnology guide
Litzinger, Lee, Wise & Felder. (2013). A Psychometric Study of the Index of Learning Styles
Macklin, Ruth Action. (2016). Causality and Teleology.
Mueller, M.; Edwards, Ron; & Trahant, Dana. (2013). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
Nergiz, Ercil & Copley. (2008). European Journal of Engineering Education
Newton, Lyn. (2016). Extroverts and Classroom
Pashler, McDanie, Rohrer & Bjork. (2015). Association for Psychological Science
Petersa, Jonesa & Peters. (2008). Preferred 'learning styles' in Students Studying Sports- Related Program. in Higher Education in the
linked Kingdom
Rick. (2015). Age, Age Preferences, Age Prejudices
Schmitt, Preston. (2016). The Myth of Preferred Learning Styles
Shawn, Thompson. (2012). Tips for Balanced Classroom
Thompson, David. (2008). Teleological, Causal and Evolutionary Explanation
Witen, Sarah. (2016). Causality, Teleology and Explanation in Social Sciences
Affiliations and Corresponding Information
Jo Marie Brun-Osongco
• Classic Baker Corporation – Philippines
• Tarlac State University – Philippines

Jo Marie Brun-Osongco 1311/1311