Not much more than platitudes? A critical look at the utility of applicant reactions research

Ryan, Ann Marie; Huth, Megan

doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.004

Cited by 51 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 121 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although not always addressed in research, applicant reactions comprise multiple dimensions such as test content, development process, test administration, test context, and outcomes (Arvey & Sackett 1993). Ryan & Huth (2008) have outlined a number of factors related to the content of an assessment, the format of the assessment, the context of the assessment, and applicant characteristics, and have made a plea for research that evaluates each factor's distinct effect on applicant reactions. Some research has compared applicant reactions to different types of technology-enhanced assessments with reactions to more traditional methods of evaluation.…”

Section: Applicant Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interactions of various factors further confound applicant perceptions regarding assessments. For example, Ryan & Huth (2008) hypothesize that lack of human touch may be counteracted by consistency of treatment and the absence of rude administrators. Potosky (2008) proposed a useful framework for a test administration medium consisting of four attributes: transparency (the extent to which the medium facilitates the communication exchange), social bandwidth (the capacity for data transfer), interactivity (the pace of mutual or reciprocal exchange between communicating parties), and surveillance (the extent to which an outside party can monitor messages carried by the medium).…”

Section: Applicant Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Technology and Assessment in Selection

Tippins¹

2015

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As technology evolves and is incorporated into testing and assessment applications, psychologists have opportunities to improve testing processes making scores on measurement tools more accurate, the administration process more efficient, and often the assessment process more realistic. At the same time, they also must contend with fundamental changes in the assumptions made about good testing practices and confront new problems that are created by technological enhancements. Issues such as distractions and their implications for test performance, changes to the applicant pool and their effect on adverse impact, and cheating and its impact on test scores must be explored. This article provides examples of how technology is being used in tests and assessments, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of relying on technology, and offers an agenda for future research. 5.1

show abstract

Section: Applicant Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Applicant Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology and Assessment in Selection

Tippins¹

2015

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are a number of conceptualizations that have provided an explanatory framework of applicant reactions that have not yet been applied to computerized testing (e.g., Bauer, Maertz, Dolen, & Campion, 1998;Gilliland, 1993;Macan, Avedon, Pease, & Smith, 1994). However, a number of researchers (e.g., Ryan & Huth, 2008;Van Vianen, Taris, Scholten, & Schinkel, 2004) argue that these conceptualizations are insufficient for providing strong psychological explanations regarding the underlying processes of applicant reactions.…”

Section: The Nature Of Applicant Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Field Study of Pretest and Posttest Reactions to a Paper-and-Pencil and a Computerized In-Basket Exercise

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present field study compared pretest and posttest face validity perceptions, predictive validity perceptions, and fairness perceptions regarding a paper-and-pencil version and a computerized version of an in-basket exercise. Furthermore, the nature of these reactions and their relationship with test performance were examined. Data were collected among 205 applicants. Contrary to our expectations, minimal differences were found between applicant reactions to the computerized version and the paper-and-pencil version of the in-basket exercise. Results from structural equation modeling showed that applicants' general beliefs in tests affected pretest reactions. Applicants' test performance influenced posttest reactions via self-assessed test performance. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

show abstract

“…This is not quite as simple as it sounds because what is viewed as "timely" is not consistent across jobs and industries. Applicants differ in their expectations regarding the frequency and speed of communication (Ryan & Huth, 2008); with technological advances individuals likely expect quicker contact from organizations (Oracle, 2012). The key for organizations is not to necessarily be the fastest in decision making but to manage expectations well by communicating clearly when applicants are likely to hear back and to follow through with any promised communication.…”

Section: Personnel Assessment and Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%