Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors

IF 11.5 3区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED

Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice Pub Date : 2023-05-09 DOI:10.1017/iop.2023.24

P. Sackett, Charlene Zhang, Christopher M. Berry, F. Lievens

{"title":"Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors","authors":"P. Sackett, Charlene Zhang, Christopher M. Berry, F. Lievens","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Sackett et al. (2022) identified previously unnoticed flaws in the way range restriction corrections have been applied in prior meta-analyses of personnel selection tools. They offered revised estimates of operational validity, which are often quite different from the prior estimates. The present paper attempts to draw out the applied implications of that work. We aim to a) present a conceptual overview of the critique of prior approaches to correction, b) outline the implications of this new perspective for the relative validity of different predictors and for the tradeoff between validity and diversity in selection system design, c) highlight the need to attend to variability in meta-analytic validity estimates, rather than just the mean, d) summarize reactions encountered to date to Sackett et al., and e) offer a series of recommendations regarding how to go about correcting validity estimates for unreliability in the criterion and for range restriction in applied work.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"283 - 300"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.24","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 16

Abstract

Abstract Sackett et al. (2022) identified previously unnoticed flaws in the way range restriction corrections have been applied in prior meta-analyses of personnel selection tools. They offered revised estimates of operational validity, which are often quite different from the prior estimates. The present paper attempts to draw out the applied implications of that work. We aim to a) present a conceptual overview of the critique of prior approaches to correction, b) outline the implications of this new perspective for the relative validity of different predictors and for the tradeoff between validity and diversity in selection system design, c) highlight the need to attend to variability in meta-analytic validity estimates, rather than just the mean, d) summarize reactions encountered to date to Sackett et al., and e) offer a series of recommendations regarding how to go about correcting validity estimates for unreliability in the criterion and for range restriction in applied work.

查看原文本刊更多论文

根据关于广泛使用的预测因子有效性的新发现，重新审视选择系统的设计

摘要Sackett等人（2022）发现，在之前的人员选择工具荟萃分析中，范围限制修正的应用方式存在以前未被注意到的缺陷。他们提供了对操作有效性的修订估计，这通常与之前的估计大相径庭。本文件试图阐明这项工作的应用意义。我们的目标是：a）从概念上概述对先前校正方法的批评，b）概述这种新观点对不同预测因子的相对有效性以及选择系统设计中有效性和多样性之间的权衡的影响，c）强调需要关注元分析有效性估计的可变性，而不仅仅是平均值，d）总结迄今为止遇到的对Sackett等人的反应，以及e）提供了一系列关于如何纠正标准中的不可靠性和应用工作中的范围限制的有效性估计的建议。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

10.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice is a peer-reviewed academic journal published on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The journal focuses on interactive exchanges on topics of importance to the science and practice of the field. It features articles that present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas, stimulating dialogue about important issues in the field. Additionally, the journal is indexed and abstracted in Clarivate Analytics SSCI, Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS), ProQuest, PsycINFO, and Scopus.