Individual Psychological Assessment

Graduate training in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology has long prepared students with skills and knowledge that are highly valued by employers, both in practice and academe alike. Our article, based on a panel discussion, explores what aspects of graduate training are sought out by employers in multiple fields, what new I-O hires need to know, and ways we can improve professional preparation for both practice and academics. Although the current SIOP Guidelines for Education and Training are satisfactory for present market conditions, we explore areas where the Guidelines could be made more forward thinking in determining the kind of training I-O students should be receiving.

Section: Our Rationalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educating Industrial–Organizational Psychologists for Science and Practice: Where Do We Go From Here?

Byrne

Hayes

McPhail³

et al. 2014

“…Individual psychological assessment (IPA 1 ) has been part of the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology for many years. It has gained in popularity over the past 30 years as assessment has become a central function in human resource departments and as I–O psychologists have gained influence and credibility in organizations (McPhail & Jeanneret, in press; Prien, Schippmann, & Prien, 2003; Silzer & Jeanneret, 1998). Howard (1990) estimated that approximately one‐third of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) members conduct individual assessments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Silzer

Jeanneret²

2011

During the past 30 years, individual psychological assessment (IPA) has gained in use and in value to organizations in the management of human resources. However, even though IPA is considered a core competency for industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology, its practice is not without critics. This article is written not only to address several criticisms of IPA but also to discuss a variety of issues that must be taken into consideration if IPA is to advance as a major component of the I–O scientist–practitioner model. We rely upon a working definition of IPA in general but, when possible, focus on executive assessment in particular, given its high level of complexity and growing popularity. We discuss the effectiveness of assessment practice, including the ongoing statistical versus clinical prediction argument and the difficulties with establishing validity. Although we are confident that IPA has many strong research and practice underpinnings, we also propose some important research questions, training guidelines, and opportunities for assessing psychologists to improve their practices.

“…Hazucha et al (2011), Lowman (2011), and Moses (2011) all discuss specific IPA content and components, but because of space limitations these topics are better left to other forums (see McPhail and Jeanneret, in press). However, we do take issue with Klehe's (2011) insistence on a strictly structured interview (her conclusion seems to be based on the results of general interview studies rather than from actual IPA practice).…”

Section: Predictors and Components Of Ipamentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Jeanneret¹,

Silzer

2011

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.