Designing Assessment Reports: How Proper Score Descriptions Can Improve Selection Decisions

Abstract

            This paper explores, through a quasi-experimental design, different ways of building employee assessment reports to determine which elements would lead to more efficient selection decisions. Two types of reports were built: (a) reports containing descriptions of the minimum and maximum scores (i.e., 1 vs. 10), and (b) reports containing the description of the exact score recorded by the participant (i.e., any score on a scale of 1 to 10). The efficiency of these report was evaluated in two scenarios: a difficult-decision scenario and an easy-decision scenario. A total of 269 hiring managers participated in a simulated selection decision setting. They were asked to choose the best candidate for a specific position, based on a job description and two personality profiles for two fictitious candidates. They were also asked about their perceived levels of comprehension and satisfaction with the report. The model was statistically significant, χ2(3) = 110, p < .001, R2N = .461. In both the difficult and the easy scenarios, reports containing descriptions of the minimum and maximum scores were more efficient than reports containing descriptions of the exact scores recorded by the participants, and they also led to higher levels of perceived comprehension and satisfaction with the report. The results were influenced by the participants’ familiarity with the used personality questionnaire (the NEO PI-R). This study has both theoretical and practical implications, extending the existing organizational literature by drawing from cognitive psychology, and highlighting the critical role that assessment reports have in the process of organizational selection decisions.