Individual Psychological Assessment: A Core Competency for Industrial–Organizational Psychology

Abstract

Individual Psychological Assessment is widely practiced among I–O psychologists and supported as a core competency by a majority of the commentaries. Our response addresses some of the key points made in the commentaries, such as issues related to the definition, contextual and criterion variables, interpretation and integration methods, validity evidence, professional matters, and future research directions. We also respond to a few critics who want to entirely eliminate expert assessor judgment in IPAs. Models are presented for using assessor judgment and mechanical methods in IPAs and for distinguishing naïve and sophisticated IPA researchers and practitioners. We conclude that IPA is now widely accepted as a core part of I–O psychology.

The Pearls and Perils of Identifying Potential

“…Assessment centers, selection tools, succession planning efforts, and development programs all represent important areas of practice and research, and many were initiated back in the 1950s and 1960s at many large organizations such as AT&T and GE, and in some cases even earlier in the military (Bray & Grant, 1966;Cappelli, 2008;Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998;Office Strategic Services, 1948). Assessment centers, selection tools, succession planning efforts, and development programs all represent important areas of practice and research, and many were initiated back in the 1950s and 1960s at many large organizations such as AT&T and GE, and in some cases even earlier in the military (Bray & Grant, 1966;Cappelli, 2008;Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998;Office Strategic Services, 1948).…”

Individual Psychological Assessment: A Practice and Science in Search of Common Ground

“…Assessment practices have existed for centuries; however, individual psychological assessment became widely used in the 20th century, particularly in the 1970s, as business organizations recognized the added value of IPA in helping selected individuals into jobs (Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998a; Prien et al, 2003; Silzer, 1984). The practice has survived and even thrives because it provides useful benefits to organizations, individual assessees, and assessor psychologists.…”

Threat of Technological Unemployment: Are Hiring Managers Discounted for Using Standardized Employee Selection Practices?

“…Generally, practitioners and candidates alike have great confidence in the use of human judgment for employee selection (Anderson, Salgado, & Hulsheger, 2010;Diab, Pui, Yankelevich, & Highhouse, 2011;Kohn & Dipboye, 1998). Practitioners, for example, claim that nonstandardized employee selection practices allow them to (a) read between the lines and spot idiosyncrasies in candidates' profiles that make them inappropriate to hire (Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998) and (b) interpret complex configurations of traits that are overlooked by simple linear models (Prien, Shippmann, & Prien, 2003). Job candidates similarly report that nonstandardized employee selection practices are more useful and comprehensive than standardized alternatives (Diab et al, 2011;Kohn & Dipboye, 1998;Latham & Finnegan, 1993).…”