The need for “Considered Estimation” versus “Conservative Estimation” when ranking or comparing predictors of job performance

Abstract

A recent attempt to generate an updated ranking for the operational validity of 25 selection procedures, using a process labeled “conservative estimation” (Sackett et al., 2022), is flawed and misleading. When conservative estimation's treatment of range restriction (RR) is used, it is unclear if reported validity differences among predictors reflect (i) true differences, (ii) differential degrees of RR (different u values), (iii) differential correction for RR (no RR correction vs. RR correction), or (iv) some combination of these factors. We demonstrate that this creates bias and introduces confounds when ranking (or comparing) selection procedures. Second, the list of selection procedures being directly compared includes both predictor methods and predictor constructs, in spite of the substantial effect construct saturation has on validity estimates (e.g., Arthur & Villado, 2008). This causes additional confounds that cloud comparative interpretations. Based on these, and other, concerns we outline an alternative, “considered estimation” strategy when comparing predictors of job performance. Basic tenets include using RR corrections in the same manner for all predictors, parsing validities of selection methods by constructs, applying the logic beyond validities (e.g., ds), thoughtful reconsideration of prior meta‐analyses, considering sensitivity analyses, and accounting for nonindependence across studies.