Interpreting the magnitude of predictor effect sizes: It is time for more sensible benchmarks

Sackett et al. (2021) published a disruptive piece that is summarized in Sackett et al. (2023) focal article. As the authors explain in the focal article, not only did their 2021 paper show that rangerestriction overcorrection has led to inflated estimates of validity for selection devices, but that the new corrections actually alter the rank ordering of predictors established in Schmidt and Hunter (1998). Many are celebrating that structured interviews have supplanted general mental ability for the top validity spot. Others, however, were deflated by the generally shrunken effect sizes associated with the new corrections. According to Sackett et al. (2023), many practitioners feel that these revised estimates do not help our traditional predictors compete for success in the marketplace, leaving many wondering how to effectively communicate the relative efficacy of predictors to key stakeholders. We believe that many scientists and practitioners hold unrealistic standards of success. It is time, therefore, for I–O psychologists to adopt and communicate new benchmarks for evaluating predictor effect sizes.