Examining Selection Utility Where Competing Predictors Differ in Adverse Impact

Hoffman, Calvin C.; Thornton, George C.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00916.x

Cited by 38 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hoffman and Thornton (1997) demonstrate that established methods of calculating the practical utility of selection methods are inadequate when adverse impact is a critical consideration. When cut scores were set to eliminate adverse impact, the practical utility of an AC was higher than a cognitive ability measure despite being more costly.…”

Section: Fidelitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Sample Testing

Callinan¹,

Robertson²

2000

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The general evidence supporting the use of work sample tests (good criterion -related validity, positive applicant reaction and job preview capability) is reviewed, limitations are also noted. The extent to which work sample tests may be used to limit adverse impact in selection is reviewed and the extent to which work sample tests may be used to complement other selection instruments, in particular, cognitive ability tests, is discussed. Work sample tests are based on attempts to embody key tasks within the job in a selection instrument. Five distinctive (though not mutually exclusive) types of work sample tests are identified and validity evidence is reviewed. Key dimensions (bandwidth, fidelity, task specificity, necessary experience, type of tasks and mode of presentation and response) are identified and used to compare different types of work sample tests.

show abstract

Section: Fidelitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Sample Testing

Callinan¹,

Robertson²

2000

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This may not be the case with selection measures scored using ratings. However, as noted earlier, commonly less adverse impact is found on measures traditionally scored using ratings than empirically correct answers (Hoffman & Thornton, ; Ployhart & Holtz, ).…”

Section: Study 2 Discussion and General Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Does Selection Measure Scoring Influence Motivation: One size fits all?

Roch

Mishra

Trombini³

2014

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current theories of applicant motivation do not take the scoring of the selection measure into account. We propose that selection measures scored objectively versus using ratings have different motivational antecedents and consequences than selection measures scored using performance ratings. Results from two studies indicated differences between a cognitive ability test (scored objectively) and both an interview and written role‐play (scored using ratings) regarding the amount of self‐reported motivation, factors related to motivation (i.e., procedural justice, perceived performance, and perceived influence), and the relationship between motivation and performance. Both perceived performance and procedural justice were related to motivation across selection measures but only procedural justice was equally important. Perceived influence was only related to motivation regarding the interview. Motivation predicted performance only on the cognitive ability test. Thus, it appears that how a selection measure will be scored should be taken into account when investigating applicant motivation.

show abstract

“…At this point, standardized predictor weight placed on cognitive ability decreased from .28 to .00, whereas the weight placed on conscientiousness increased from .12 to .79. To some extent, the tradeoff between adverse impact and validity is unavoidable (Ployhart & Holtz, 2008;Hoffman & Thornton, 1997). However, organizations should understand the practical consequences of using one selection method versus the other (e.g., tradeoff between performance and diversity; Sackett, De Corte, & Lievens, 2010), and they should be able to justify their rationale for implementing their selection method.…”

Section: Methods For Determining the Selection Decision Point The Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical Impact of Predictor Reliability for Personnel Selection Decisions

Ock¹

2011

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In personnel selection, employment tests are intended to reduce selection errors and increase mean performance. The current thesis examines the impact of psychometric properties of the predictors on selection accuracy, or the consistency between selection on observed scores versus true scores. Implications for validity and subsequent levels of job performance, or prediction accuracy, are also examined in light of common top-down personnel selection procedures. Results reflect the importance of having reliable and valid predictor measures; the work also extends ideas in the area of utility analysis. Acknowledgements

show abstract

Examining Selection Utility Where Competing Predictors Differ in Adverse Impact

Cited by 38 publications

References 30 publications

Work Sample Testing

Work Sample Testing

Does Selection Measure Scoring Influence Motivation: One size fits all?

Practical Impact of Predictor Reliability for Personnel Selection Decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About