■ 論文 ■経営論集

Vol. 6, No. 7, March 2020, pp. 1-7
ISSN 2189-2490

パス解析を用いた面接審査における影響分析
森
大
橋

江
本

一
朋
貴

将
子
充

和文要旨
本研究では、AO 入試における面接審査を想定して、パスモデル解析を用いて学生に対する直感評定と成績の間の関係性を分析する。具体的には、ある統計科目における108名の学生（受講生）を対象に、学期の初めに学生に科目の志望理由や意気込みを聞き、それを教員が直感評定した。加えて当該学生の期末成績をとり、この関係性を分析した。また、調査においてはビッグファイブ理論に基づくパーソナ
リティ特性を日本語版 Ten Item Personality Inventory（TIPI-J）を用いて測定し、パーソナリティ特性と直感評定の関係性を調べた。その結果、面接審査でよく使われる志望理由と意気込みは直接的な関係性はない一方で、意気込みは期末成績と関係性を持つことが示唆された。また、パーソナリティ特性のうち勤勉性（conscientiousness）は意気込みを通して期末成績に影響を及ぼすことも示唆された。

キーワード：直感評定、面接、入学試験、パス解析、ビッグファイブパーソナリティ尺度（投稿日

文教大学経営学部〒253-8550 神奈川県茅ヶ崎市行谷1100
Tel 0467-53-2111（代表） Fax 0467-54-3734
http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/business/

2020年 1 月28日）

経営論集

Vol.6, No.7（2020）pp.1-7

An eﬀect analysis of intuitive scoring in interview
selections with path model
Kazumasa Mori*
Tomoko Oe**Taka-Mitsu Hashimoto***evaluation.

I．INTRODUCTION

In this study, we examined intuitive
scoring for selection interviews（Kahneman,

In this study, we used path model

2011; Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011）andanalysis to evaluate the effects between

term-end examination scores as academic

intuitive scoring of students and theirachievements for 108 university students. We

academic achievement. Intuitive scoring is aalso measured the Big Five personality traits

type of evaluation used in the interview

of these students using the Japanese Version

selection process to assess candidates’ abilities.

of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory

Although intuitive scoring is often used for（Gosling et al., 2003; Oshio et al., 2012）.Finally,

university entrance examinations in Japan, its

we analyzed the relationship between

validity has seldom been evaluated.

intuitive scoring, academic achievement, andAdditionally, the relationship between

the Big Five personality traits.

intuitive scoring and other candidate

As mentioned before, we examined thecharacteristics, such as personality traits, isrelationship between intuitive scoring and thealso rarely evaluated. In this study, we use

Ten-Item Personality Inventory based on thepath model analysis to evaluate the validity of

Big Five personality theory （Tupes &intuitive scoring and how it relates to

Christal, 1961; John & Srivastava, 1999）. The

personality traits. Intuitive scoring is often

Big Five personality theory （BFPT） is aused at entrance examination of university inmodel based on common language descriptors

Japan. For example, on the admission officeof personality. The BFPT divides human（AO）examination, students are selected bypersonality into five traits: Openness toan interview process which includes intuitive

Experience （O）, Conscientiousness （C）,
Extraversion（E）, Agreeableness（A）, and* 文教大学経営学部
morik@shonan.bunkyo.ac.jp** 帝京大学文学部***大学入試センター研究開発部

Neuroticism （N）. These traits have beenfound to be stable across cultures（McCrae
and Costa, 1997）. A relationship between

1

BFPT results and personality disorders

II．EXPERIMENT DESIGN AND
BASIC RESULTS（Clark, 2007）,anxiety disorders（Kessler et al.
2005）,and some other social activities has also
been established. Although the best known

In this section, we provide a brief

BFPT scale is the Revised NEO Personality

overview of our design and results.

Inventory （NEO PI-R, Costa & McCrae,
1985）, it is at times too long to measure when

A. Participants

using it along with other psychological scales.
To solve this problem, Gosling et al.（2003）

A total of 108 undergraduate businessdeveloped a shorter scale for the BFPT, themajors at a university in Japan participated in

Ten-Item Personality Inventory（TIPI）. TIPI

this study. From that group, 88 completed thisconsists of ten questionnaires that are easy toexperiment. The participants ranged in age

use when examining the Big Five traits alongfrom 18-22 years old. All the participants werewith using other scales, such as the IRS

enrolled in a statistics course. All the participantstendency scale. For this reason, we chose towere fluent in Japanese. They did not receive

use the Japanese version of TIPI for ourany compensation for their participation in

study.

this research study.

In this study, we used path model analysis
B. Experiment design

to evaluate the effects between using intuitive
scoring for students and their academic

Questionnaires: At the beginning of theachievement. Path models depict the causal

semester, we sent the participants two

relationships between characteristics of interest,

questionnaires. One questionnaire asked about

and are used to describe quantitative analyses

their motivation in joining the statistics course

such as regressions, or more complex structural

while the other focused on their eagerness.

equation models. By using path model

The Ten-Item Personality Inventory: We

analysis, we show the relationship between

used the TIPI to measure the participants’

intuitive scoring and academic achievement

personality traits. As all the participants wereand examine if intuitive scoring is able tofluent in Japanese, we used the Japaneseadequately predict academic achievement.

version of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory

The remainder of the paper is organized（TIPI-J）（Oshio et al., 2012）. The TIPI-J was

as follows: The experiment design and basic

administered using a seven-point scale, inresults are presented in Section 2, the results

accordance with the original studies.

of our analysis are presented in Section 3, andIntuitive scores: Two teachers used intuitive

the conclusion and discussion are presented inscoring on the two sets of questionnaires

Section 4.

（motivation and eagerness）. Evaluation criteria

2

経営論集

Vol.6, No.7（2020）pp.1-7

for scoring was based on if the participants

Table ₁． Basic TIPI︲J statistics

achieved good grades at the end of the semester.
Mean
SD

The intuitive score was administered using afive-point scale.
Term-end examinations: At the end of

O

C

E

A

N

8.236
2.153

6.551
2.384

7.966
2.673

10.191
2.050

8.382
2.556

Table ₂． Basic statistics for intuitive scores andterm︲end examination scores

the semester, we evaluated the results ofparticipants’ final examinations. The final

Intuitive scoresTerm-end
examinations

examination consisted of ten items focused on

Motivation Eagerness

Score

basic statistical knowledge.

Mean
SD

3.034
0.869

3.056
0.810

74.43815.345

C. Data analysis

III．RESULTS OF ANALYSES

We used a combination of quantitative andqualitative approaches in the data analysis,

A. Analysis 1 : Correlation analysis of intuitive

which was conducted with respect to theobjective set for this study. All analysis wasscores and related measurescarried out using R statistical software, version

For Analysis 1, we evaluated the correlation
between intuitive scores, personality traits,

3.3.0.

and term-end examination scores in order toanalyze them using the path model.

D. Basic results
From the scales denoted in section II.B, weFirst, we evaluated the correlations withincalculated scale sum scores by each element.

the intuitive scores and the correlation between

The basic statistics for the scale sum scores

intuitive scores and term-end examination

received from the TIPI-J are shown in Table

scores. These results are shown on Tables 3

1. As mentioned earlier, the table abbreviations

and 4. Our findings show that motivation andrepresent scale sum scores for Openness toeagerness, which are intuitive scores, have a

Experience （O）, Conscientiousness （C）,

strong correlation that is statistically signif icant.

Extraversion（E）, Agreeableness（A）, andOn the other hand, for intuitive scoring and

Neuroticism（N）. We did not find specific or

term-end examination scores, we only foundabnormal values in these statistics. The basica mild correlation between eagerness andstatistics for the intuitive scores and theterm-end examination scores. These results

term-end examination scores are shown insuggest that the intuitive score that most

Table 2.

affects academic achievement is eagerness.

3

correlation. Thus, we established a direct

Table ₃． Correlation within intuitive scores
Eagernessrelationship between such personality traits＊＊＊

Motivation

0.813

and intuitive scores.
Table ₆． Correlation between intuitive scores andpersonality traits

Table ₄． Correlation between intuitive scores andterm︲end examination scores
Eagerness
Term-end examination
Score

Motivation

0.226＊O
Eagerness

0.133

C

E
＊

0.1083 0.2152

Motivation 0.0656

0.1391

0.0542AN

0.1345 －0.0031

0.1962＋ 0.1431

0.0607

B. A nalysis 2 : Effect analysis of intuitive

Next, we analyzed the correlation between
term-end examination scores and personality

scoring using the path model

traits. These results are shown in Table 5. It

For Analysis 2, we evaluated the relationshipis noteworthy that there is no significant

between intuitive scores, personality traits,correlation between term-end examinationand term-end examination scores, using thescores and personality traits. Althoughpath model based on results of Analysis 1,

Komarraju et al.（2011）suggested a relationshipand clarified factors that affect academic

between academic achievement and personality

achievement.

traits, our findings do not support this. Thus,

We proposed five models, as listed below:

we did not set a direct relationship between•（ModelA） Extended regression model

term-end examination scores and personality

without personality traits. This model

traits in our later path model analysis.

describes how eagerness affects term-end

Table ₅． Correlation between term︲end examination
scores and personality traits

examination scores and how motivation

O

C

E

A

affects eagerness. Note that we set causality

N

between motivation and eagerness in

Term-end
examination 0.0935 0.066 0.0037 0.0016 0.0417
Score

addition to causality between eagerness andterm-end examination scores.

Finally, we evaluated the correlation•（ModelB）Extended regression model with

between intuitive scores and personality

personality traits（C）. This model describes

traits. Table 6 displays these results. Although

how eagerness affects term-end examination

we concluded that personality traits did notscores and how personality trait C affects

affect term-end examination scores, we foundeagerness.

that some personality traits and intuitive•（ModelC） Path analysis model withscores have a mild correlation. More precisely,

unidirectional causality. In this model, we

personality trait C and eagerness have a

set unidirectional causality between motivation

significant correlation, and personality trait E

and eagerness in addition to causality

and motivation have a marginally significant

between eagerness effects and term-end

4

経営論集

Vol.6, No.7（2020）pp.1-7

examination scores, with related personality

The main characteristics of Models C, D andtraits（C, E）.

E are the motivation factor and personality•（ModelD） Path analysis model withtrait E indirectly affecting term-end examination

bidirectional causality. In this model, we set

scores. We found unidirectional causality

bidirectional causality between motivation

between eagerness and motivation on Modeland eagerness in addition to causality between

C, bidirectional causality between eagerness

eagerness effects and term-end examinationand motivation on Model D, and a correlatingscores, with related personality traits（C, E）.

error between eagerness and motivation on•（ModelE） Path analysis model with

Model E. As a result, we chose Model E. Withcorrelating errors. In this model, we set

these results, we suggest the two intuitive

correlating errors between motivation andscores（eagerness and motivation）have noeagerness in addition to causality between

direct relationship to each other.

eagerness effects and term-end examination

Fig． ₁． Results of estimation in model A

scores, with related personality traits（C, E）.

223.386＊＊＊

Term-end
examination Score

As clearly demonstrated, we found that
all of these models fit the path model analysis.

0.755＊＊＊

Thus, we used path analysis with these

Motivation

models.

e10.222＊＊＊

4.293＊＊＊
0.758＊＊＊

e2

Eagerness

Fig． ₂． Results of estimation in model B

The results of estimation in models A-E

223.386＊＊＊

are shown in Figures 1-5, and the goodness ofTerm-end
examination Score

fit indices of the proposed models are showne1
4.293＊＊＊in Table 7. As we found that the basic goodnessof fit index（GFI, AGFI, RMSEA, SRMR）exceed

Eagernessthe required level, we compared proposede20.640＊＊＊

0.053＊＊＊

models based on the information criteria
index（AIC, BIC）. We found two conclusions.

C

One, Model B is optimal based on the AIC

5.682＊＊＊

index, and two, Model E is optimal based on

Fig． ₃． Results of estimation in model C

the BIC index. The difference between Model

Term-end
examination Score

B and Model E is the motivation factor of
0.725

＊＊＊

personality trait E. As we found a stronge2

correlation between eagerness and motivation

Motivation

0.752＊＊＊

E
0.927＊＊＊

5

Eagernesse3

C
7.146＊＊＊

Next, we focused on evaluating Model E.

0.221＊＊＊

0.015

0.063

the motivation factor in our study.

e14.293＊＊＊

from Analysis 1, we chose Model E to include

223.386＊＊＊5.682＊＊＊

relation to university entrance examinations.

Fig． ₄． Results of estimation in model D
Term-end
examination Score

0.246＊＊＊

0.767

Motivation

e2

＊＊＊

0.200＊

223.386

We often evaluate students by their sum＊＊＊

e1
4.293＊

0.474＊＊＊

Eagernesse3scores of eagerness and motivation in theselection interview portion of entrance
examinations. However, our conclusion suggests

0.019＊

0.059＊＊＊

E

that this evaluation is not appropriate. In

C
7.146

future entrance examinations, we should＊＊＊

0.927＊＊＊

instead evaluate students by eagerness, while
viewing motivation as a secondary factor.

Fig． ₅． Results of estimation in model E

We also concluded that the conscientiousness

223.386＊＊＊

Term-end
examination Scoree1

personality trait affects term-end examination

4.293＊

Motivation
0.051

＊＊＊

E

e2

0.726＊＊＊
7.146＊＊＊

scores through eagerness. This means that

Eagerness
e3

0.560＊＊＊

0.020

conscientiousness indirectly affects academicCachievement. Conscientiousness is a dimension＊

0.645＊＊＊

5.682＊＊＊of getting through work with a certain

0.927＊

purpose or intent. Thus, students with a highTable ₇． Goodness of ﬁt index of proposed models

level of conscientiousness study in an

Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E
GFI

0.994

0.999

0.976

0.992

0.99

organized, planned way, and these efforts may

AGFI

0.968

0.996

0.93

0.97

0.971

lead to better academic achievement.

RMSEA

0.000

0.000

0.0250

0.000

0.000

It is interesting that intuitive scoring

SRMR

0.02

0.021

0.05

0.035

0.046

predicted academic achievement directly,

AIC

10.70510.08725.29323.76922.161BIC－3.784－4.4 －17.149 －16.185 －20.281

although personality trait using TIPI-J affects
academic achievement indirectly. We
considered that intuitive scoring evaluatedIV．CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

students’ detailed characteristics that cannot
be measured by TIPI-J.

In this study, we used path model

We also propose two further studies.

analysis to evaluate the relationship between

First, we suggest additional experiments in

intuitive scoring of students and theirorder to confirm our results for courses otheracademic achievement. As a result, wethan statistics. In our study, we evaluatedconcluded that eagerness and motivation,

intuitive scoring in statistics courses, so we

which are often used in selection interviews,

cannot state for certain if intuitive scoring

do not have direct causality, and that

affects all academic achievement, beyond aeagerness affects academic achievement.

mathematics-based subject. In the future, we

These results are very interesting inshould conduct additional studies with other

6

経営論集

Vol.6, No.7（2020）pp.1-7

courses required for the general university

K., and Walters, E.（2005）. Prevalence, severity,

entrance examination, such as foreign

and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders
in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.

language, national language, social science,

Archives of General Psychiatry, 62: 617-627.

and science to learn if our results are supported［ 4 ］ Gigerenzer, G., and Gaissmaier, W.（2011）.

with those courses as well. Additionally, further

Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of

research is needed to confirm our results are

Psychology, 62: 451-482.

consistent with actual entrance examinations,［ 5 ］ Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., and Swann, W.B.,

such as the admission office examination. In

Jr.（2003）. A Very Brief Measure of the Big
Five Personality Domains. Journal of Research

this case, we must pay attention to the effects

in Personality, 37: 504-528.

on student selection. As we focus on and assist［ 6 ］ John, O.P., and Srivastava, S.（1999）. The Big

only successful candidates, we lose group

Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, andhomogeneity, and as such, may not acquire

theoretical perspectives. In L.A. Pervin, and O.P.

the same results as in this study. More precisely,

John（Eds.）, Handbook of Personality: Theory andwe may not discern as clear of a relationshipResearch（pp.102-138）. New York: Guilford Press.
［ 7 ］ Kahneman, D.（2011）. Thinking, Fast andbetween intuitive scoring and academic

Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

achievement, as shown in Table 4. We also

［ 8 ］ Komarraju, M., Karau, S.J., Schmeck, R.R., andpaid attention to personality traits. As Komarraju

Avdic, A.（2011）. The Big Five personality traits,

et al. （2011） suggested, the relationshiplearning styles, and academic achievement.

between personality traits and academic

Personality and Individual Differences, 51（ 4 ）：472-477.

achievement may reduce the goodness of fit［ 9 ］ McCrae, R.R., and Costa, P.T.（1997）. Personality

index of a path model, such as in Table 7. In

trait structure as a human universal. American

actual observations of entrance examinations,

Psychologist, 52（ 2 ）：509–516.

it is preferable to observe both rejected and［10］ Oshio, A., Abe, S., and Pino, C. （2012）.

accepted candidates. However, this experimental

Development, Reliability, and Validity of thedesign may be hard to apply, as we do not

Japanese Version of the Ten-Item Personality
Inventory（TIPI-J）. The Japanese Journal of

typically follow rejected candidates.

Personality, 21（ 1 ）：40-52.（in Japanese）［11］ Tupes, E.C., and Christal, R.E.（1961）. Recurrent

References［ 1 ］ Clark, L.A.（2007）. Assessment and diagnosis

Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings.
Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97, Lackland Airof personality disorder: Perennial issues and an

Force Base, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Air Forceemerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of

Systems Command, 1961.

Psychology, 58: 227-257.
［ 2 ］ Costa, P.T., and McCrae, R.R.（1985）. The

Acknowledgments

NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL:

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Number 16K01058.

［ 3 ］ Kessler, R., Chiu, W., Demler, O., Merikangas,

7

Journal of Public and Private Management
Vol. 6, No. 7, March 2020, pp. 1-7
ISSN 2189-2490

An eﬀect analysis of intuitive scoring in interview
selections with path model
Kazumasa Mori
Tomoko Oe
Taka-Mitsu Hashimoto
Faculty of Business Administration, Bunkyo University
morik@shonan.bunkyo.ac.jp
Recieved. 28. January 2020

Abstract
In this study, we used a path model analysis to evaluate the effects between intuitive scoring ofstudents and their academic achievement. More precisely, we examined intuitive scoring forinterview selection and term-end examination scores as it relates to academic achievement for 108
university students. We also used the Japanese Version of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory tomeasure the Big Five personality traits of the students. Finally, we analyzed the relationship between
intuitive scoring, academic achievement, and the Big Five personality traits. As a result, weconcluded that eagerness and motivation, which are often used in interview selections, do not havedirect causality, although eagerness does affect academic achievement. We also concluded that theconscientiousness personality trait affects term-end examinations through eagerness.

Keywords：intuitive selection, interview, entrance examination, path analysis, Big Five personality
traits.

Faculty of Business Administration, Bunkyo University
1100 Namegaya, Chigasaki, Kanagawa 253-8550, JAPANTel +81-467-53-2111, Fax +81-467-54-3734
http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/business/

経営論集

Vol.6, No.7

ISSN 2189-2490
2020年３月31日発行
発行者

文教大学経営学部

石塚

浩

編集

文教大学経営学部

研究推進委員会

編集長

森

一将

〒253-8550 神奈川県茅ヶ崎市行谷1100
TEL：0467-53-2111

FAX：0467-54-3734

http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/business/