Evaluations of Tests Used for Making Selection and Promotion Decisions

Abstract

Participants (N = 212) rated the fairness, job relevance, appropriateness, and invasiveness of 16 tests that could be used to select o r promote people into production or management positions. Fairness, job relevance and appropriateness were highly correlated, and were combined to form a composite evaluation scale. Evaluations and invasiveness ratings varied among the 16 tests, with the most positive ratings given to interviews and work samples and the most negative ratings given to astrology, graphology and polygraphs. Evaluations of four tests were affected by the position (manager vs. production worker). Evaluations of 11 tests and invasiveness ratings of two tests were affected by respondent experience with the test.Respondents who had experienced the tests evaluated them more positively and considered them to entail a smaller invasion of privacy. Responses were not affected by whether the test was to be used for selection versus promotion decisions.

Applicant Perceptions of Selection Procedures: The Role of Selection Information, Belief in Tests, and Comparative Anxiety

“…This explanation echoes findings in the literature about communicating utility information regarding selection procedures to managers. Contrary to earlier studies (Latham and Whyte 1994;Whyte and Latham 1997) that demonstrated that managers had less support for a valid selection procedure when they were given utility analysis information, Carson, Becker and Henderson (2000) discovered that managers had more support for utility analysis information only when it was presented in a less complex and more comprehensible manner. Similar positive results for less complex and more comprehensible information have been found in the broader literature on organizational decision making (Dutton and Ashford 1993;O'Reilly 1983) and persuasion (Petty and Cacioppo 1981).…”

“…The results were identical to the findings heretofore presented. We also examined whether applicants' prior experience with selection procedures might play a role (see Kravitz, Stinson and Chavez 1996). Applicants' previous selection procedure experience might serve as a moderator in the sense that the information manipulation might promote fairness perceptions of a specific selection procedure only among applicants who lack experience with that specific selection procedure.…”

“…In the current version of the questionnaire, applicants were already asked to fill in several items per selection procedure. For the same reason, earlier comparative studies of applicant perceptions also used single item measures for the procedural justice dimensions (Kravitz et al 1996;Steiner and Gilliland 1996).…”

Predictors of Task and Contextual Performance: Frame-of-Reference Effects and Applicant Reaction Effects on Selection System Validity

“…& DeShon, 1998;Kravitz, Stinson, & Chavez. 1996;Rynes & Connerly, 1993;Smither, Millsap, Stoffey, Reilly, & Pearlman.…”

“…However, many o f the studies cited here have been conducted using college students as "applicants" (e.g., Chan, Schmitt, Sacco. & DeShon, 1998;Kravitz. Stinson, & Chavez, 1996;Rynes & Connerly, 1993) and they have studied a limited scope of job and test types.…”