Blog
Client voices
"We are really happy to have found cut-e as our new provider and partner for our Vodafone feedback projects."Pia Simionescu, Vodafone
Employee motivation – a critical success factor for companies
Selecting the right fit in terms of corporate values and motivation structure is a key challenge in the recruitment process. Employee motivation is also important in development. Motivation analysis offers a starting point from which an employee’s performance and competencies can be developed further. The values questionnaire views can help you efficiently and reliably identify the motives and values of your employees and applicants.
cut-e values questionnaires in use
views is an adaptive questionnaire system that covers individual, job-related values, motives and interests.
views is based on a model made up of 18 values, grouped into three areas: objectives, relationships and environment. The model underlying viewshas been developed to specifically measure occupationally relevant values, motives and interests in order to assess the 'cultural fit' of a person with a company, department or team.
The questionnaire identifies 18 dimensions, each through 6 statements. Thanks to the innovative adalloc™ measurement technology, the statements are grouped into blocks with three statements each, which then have to be differently weighted by the candidate. This creates sophisticated and valid profiles with a completion time of only approx. 15 minutes. The simple answering format and short completion time ensures high user acceptance and lower drop-out rates compared to traditional approaches.
Processes can be managed either by cut-e or by clients autonomously. Many different functions are available for entering and adding projects and candidates, for sending e-mails and creating various reports.
The results can be called up simply and easily online. They are arranged clearly in a profile chart, or alternatively narrative reports can be generated.
The system, questionnaire and reports are available in many languages. Additional language versions are available on request. The international and local set of norm groups as well as the language versions are continually updated.
The cut-e values questionnaire: views
Available on
What does this assessment measure?
Occupational or work relevant values, motives and interests.
What is the task?
The questionnaire identifies 18 dimensions, each through 6 statements. Thanks to the innovative adalloc™ measurement technology, the statements are grouped into blocks with three statements each, which then have to be differently weighted by the candidate.
Available on
Adaptive testing to allow short personality and values questionnaires
views uses the adalloc™ adaptive measurement technology developed by cut-e. This technology allows a highly sophisticated profile of personal values to be created with a very short questionnaire.
Reference Reading
Ashton, M. C. (1996). Personality and job performance: the importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289-303.
Baron, H. (1996). Strength and Limitations of Ipsative Measurements. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 69, 49-56.
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-25.
Bartram, D. (1996). The relationship between ipsatized and normative measures of personality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 25-39.
Bartram, D. (2007). Increasing validity with forced-choice criterion measurement formats. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 263–272.
Brown, A. & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2012). Fitting a Thurstonian IRT model to forced-choice data using Mplus. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1135-1147.
De Vries, A., de Vries, R. & Born, M. P. (2010). Broad versus narrow traits: Conscientiousness and honesty-humility as predictors of academic criteria. European Journal of Personality, 25, 336-348.
Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E. & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the inter-correlations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 40-57.
Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T. & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36, 341-357.
Heggestad, E. D., Morrison, M., Reeve C. L. & McCloy, R. A. (2006). Forced-Choice Assessments of Personality for Selection: Evaluating Issues of Normative Assessment and Faking Resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 9-24.
Hicks, L. E. (1970). Some properties of ipsative, normative and forced choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 167-184.
Justenhoven, R. T. (2014). Adaptive allocation of consent – Innovative Itemformate zur Messung von Persönlichkeit. Unveröffentlichte Masterarbeit. Hamburg: Hochschule Fresenius.
Kurz, R., Bartram, D. & Baron, H. (2004). Assessing potential and performance at work: The Great Eight competencies. Proceedings of the British Psychological Society, 4, 91-95.
Lohff, A. & Wehrmaker, M. (2008). AdallocTM – adaptive scales for online questionnaires. In W. Sarges & D. Scheffer (Hrsg.), Innovative Ansätze für die Eignungsdiagnostik (S. 239-251). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Salgado, J. F. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 323-346.
Saville, P. & Willson, E. (1991). The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative approaches in the measurement of personality. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 219-238.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
Sitser, T., van der Linden, D. & Born, M. P. (2013). Predicting Sales Performance with Personality Measures: the Use of the General Factor of Personality, the Big Five and Narrow Traits. Human Performance, 26, 126-149.
