An abundance of literature exists seeking to describe job performance and the changing nature of performance over time. The topic of dynamic criteria supports the assertion that job performance is not stable and changes over time. In addition to the study of job outcomes, or criteria, considerable work has been done examining the predictors of job performance. One predictor of job performance that has received significant attention is intelligence. Numerous works exist examining the relationship between intelligence and job performance. Some of the work examining the predictive validity of intelligence to job outcomes has been done so in the context of dynamic criteria. Findings, based mostly on laboratory studies, point to a declining predictive validity of intelligence to job outcomes over time. That is, intelligence is more predictive of performance when tasks are new than in later job stages when tasks are automated. Another widely studied predictor of job performance is personality. While there is not complete agreement in the literature as to the factors that make up personality, the five factor model is the most widely supported. Though not as vast as intelligence, limited works have examined the predictive validity of personality factors to job outcomes over time.

The present study sought to integrate and advance past research relating intelligence and personality to job outcomes over time. This field study examined the predictive validity of both intelligence and personality to objective performance over a four year period. Participants were financial advisors who completed both intelligence and personality assessments. The results of these measures were correlated with their sales results over their prior four years of employment in an effort to describe the changing predictive validity over time.

The findings did not support the hypotheses, nor did the results support a relationship between the factors studied and job performance. As such, the discussion section presents a further analysis to explain why these relationships were not found. While the hypotheses were not supported, relationships between other factors that were not the primary focus of the study were found.