Methodological moderators in validating biographical data in personnel selection¹

Abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated the validity of biographical data in psychological diagnosis, and several meta-analyses have confirmed their effectiveness in specific applications. In contrast, the present meta-analysis (based on 116 studies with 165 independent validities) addresses the recent discussion on methodological artifacts in the development and validation of biographical instruments. Threats to validity are identified in (I) general issues of research design and (h) specific techniques used to construct and validate biographical data. The effects on estimated mean validity of both methodological artifacts and situational moderator variables were compared, and it WdS demonstrated that they cannot be treated independently. The meta-analysis also showed that a validity of ,220 still remained after making corrections for all analysed artifacts, and that not all methodological criticisms were justified. * Partly cross-validated, partly corrected for shrinkage. Key. RR = range restriction, Re1 = measurement error, E = external key. Received I7 December 1992;final version received 10 February I995 Applied Psychology, 40, 383-385. development of biodata keys: The influence of social desirability.

From the Work One Knows the Worker: A Systematic Review of the Challenges, Solutions, and Steps to Creating Synthetic Validity

“…Considerable research has been conducted exploring the connection between performance and selection predictors. These include GMA (Salgado, Anderson, Moscoso, Bertua, & de Fruyt, 2003a), personality (Barrick et al, 2001), and biodata (Bliesener, 1996). This research provides some useful information that can be used to map the relationship between GWBs and predictors.…”

Reviewing, Categorizing, and Analyzing the Literature on Black–White Mean Differences for Predictors of Job Performance: Verifying Some perceptions and Updating/Correcting Others

“…1 1 In the relatively specific literature on cognitive ability, there has been a statement that predictive and concurrent observed validities are similar (Barrett, Phillips, & Alexander, 1981; see also SIOP Principles, 2003, p. 15) as well as reactions to that statement (Guion & Cranny, 1982). However, findings of lower predictive validity for incumbent samples are discussed in the literature on biodata (e.g., Bliesener, 1996; Reilly & Warech, 1993, p. 145) and personality (Barrett, 2008; Hough, 1998; Morgeson et al, 2007). …”

Web‐based Assessment of Call Center Agents: Development and Validation of a Computerized Instrument

“…The main study supports the utility of this web-based instrument in pre-selection settings. Overall, a criterionrelated validity of .33 (corrected) was found which is fairly satisfactory and higher than validity scores usually observed for biographical data (Bliesener, 1996;HarveyCook and Taffler, 2000). In a recent meta-analysis of selection instruments, Schmidt and Hunter (1998) reported a predictive validity score for biodata as a single selection method of about .35, and for structured interviews of about .38.…”

“…Usually, biographical data of applicants are used in the pre-selection or entry-level. However, these biographical measures have been criticized for a number of reasons (Bliesener, 1996;Mumford and Owens, 1987). For instance, Bliesener (1996) found only a small average predictive validity of .22 in a meta-analysis.…”