the cinderella predictor

Download The cinderella predictor

Post on 11-Jun-2015




4 download

Embed Size (px)


  • 1. StefanMol AnneKeegan GaborKismihokThe Cinderella Predictor:Taking job knowledge to the personnel selection ball

2. ContentRelatedValidityCriterionRelatedValidityConstruct Related Validity 3. ContentRelatedValidityCriterionRelatedValidityConstruct Related Validity 4. Job Knowledgepeople who are more intelligent learnmore job knowledge and learn it faster, the Criterion Relatedmajor determinant of job performance isValiditynot GMA but job knowledge (Schmidt andHunter, 2001).JobGMA Job knowledge Performance 5. CriterionJob Knowledge RelatedValidityValidity is nearly twice as high for job specifictests than for of the-shelf tests. In fact, thelevels for locally developed tests appear torival those of general ability tests (Dye, Reck& McDaniel, 1993,p. 156).=.62, k =59, N=3965 JobGMA Job knowledgePerformance 6. Criterion Job KnowledgeRelatedValidityContent-related evidence of validityhas traditionally involved rational ContentRelatedexamination of the manner in whichValiditythe performance domain is sampled bythe predictor (Binning &Barrett, 1989, p. 482). 7. Criterion Job Knowledge Related ValidityJob knowledge: According to the APApublication manual which statistics do Contentyou need to report in a regression Relatedanalysis table?ValidityGMA: How smart do you need to be topublish an article?Hunter (1986, p. 353) knowledge is amuch better measure of performancethan [supervisor] ratings. 8. Criterion Job KnowledgeRelatedValidityconstruct validation and theorydevelopment imply the same basicContentRelatedprocess. If it can be shown that a Validitytest measures a specific construct that has been determined to be criticalfor job performance, then inferences Construct Relatedabout job performance from test scores Validityare by logical implication justified(Binning and Barrett, 1989, p.487, p.480 9. Criterion Job KnowledgeRelatedValidityContent SubstantiationRelatedValidityConstruct Related1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1Validity Job Knowledge SpecificityJob Performance Specificity 10. Towards a research agendaUndeniably Job GeneralUnequivocally Job Specific (albeit more portable for more related occupations) Job Job GMAKnowledge Performance Education Job Specific JobGeneral 11. Development of Job Knowledge Tests:Implications Focus on idiosyncratic job knowledgerequirements Requires use of inductive, interpretive researchmethods Implications for status and acceptance ofqualitative research within the personnelpsychology community Qualitative research often advances the field byproviding unique, memorable, socially important andtheoretically meaningful contributions to scholarlydiscourse and organizational life (Gephart and Rynes2004, p.461) 12. Job Knowledge as Matchmaker Connecting: HRM, eLearning & Knowledge Management(foster collaboration) Academia and industry (Science and practice) Employees and workplaces (Enhanced Matching) Policy and Education (Training) Government and Labor Market (Needs analysis) 13. Technology is on our side Flexible systems for matching employees, organizations andeducational institutions Process Management Semantic applications Data structuring Comparability Text/data mining Automatic data collection and recognition Content management eLearning methodologies for content representation (LO, LOR, OER) Adaptive testing 14. Why make the effort?With representative job knowledge tests: We no longer need to reject candidates on stabledispositional characteristics We can inform candidates as to where they canobtain missing knowledge We can inform educational institutions aboutmissing job knowledge of their graduates We can gauge the knowledge ofimmigrants, informal learners, and the elderly