With Internet access no longer restricted to desktop and laptop computers, job applicants now have the opportunity to complete remotely delivered assessments on mobile, handheld small screen devices such as smartphones, and personal digital assistants. In this study, a large dataset is used to investigate demographic and score differences between job applicants who completed a remotely delivered high-stakes assessment on a mobile device and those who completed it on a nonmobile device. Based on a sample of 3,575,207 job applicants who completed an unproctored Internet-based assessment between January 2011 and April 2012, the percentage of applicants completing the assessment on a mobile device was small, 1.93%, but nevertheless represented more than 69,000 people. Overall, there were small test-taker demographic differences in the use of mobile devices versus nonmobile devices in that mobile devices were slightly more likely to be used by women, AfricanAmericans and Hispanics, and younger applicants. Scores on a personality measure were similar for mobile and nonmobile devices but scores on a general mental ability test were substantially lower for mobile devices. Tests of measurement invariance also indicated equivalence across the mobile and nonmobile samples. Test taker and organizational implications for completing remotely delivered high-stakes noncognitive and cognitive assessments on mobile versus nonmobile devices are discussed.

The popularity of coaching continues to grow at a rate faster than research can validate coaching practices. Although strong research and theory on coaching have been emerging over the past few years, we believe that this body of literature would benefit from more integration of theory and application of organizing frameworks. The current paper seeks to contribute to the coaching literature by applying a Control Theory (CT) framework to elements of executive coaching. The two core elements of CT-goals and feedback-are also critical components of executive coaching. By applying a CT framework, we hope to provide both structure and new ideas regarding the roles of goals and feedback in executive coaching. We also suggest that one role of executive coaches is to help coaches become more effective self-regulators and effectively engage in goal setting and feedback seeking, among other things, in order to facilitate development.

Conventional wisdom suggests that assessment length is positively related to the rate at which applicants opt out of the assessment phase. However, restricting assessment length can negatively impact the utility of a selection system by reducing the reliability of its construct scores and constraining coverage of the relevant criterion domain. Given the costly nature of these tradeoffs, is it better for managers to prioritize (a) shortening assessments to reduce applicant attrition rates or (b) ensuring optimal reliability and validity of their assessment scores? In the present study, we use data from 222,772 job-seekers nested within 69 selection systems to challenge the popular notion that selection system length predicts applicant attrition behavior. Specifically, we argue that the majority of applicant attrition occurs very early in the assessment phase and that attrition risk decreases, not increases, as a function of time spent in assessment. Our findings supported these predictions, revealing that the majority of applicants who quit assessments did so within the first 20 min of the assessment phase. Consequently, selection system length did not predict rates of applicant attrition. In fact, when controlling for observed system length and various job characteristics, we found that systems providing more conservative (i.e., longer) estimates of assessment length produced lower overall attrition rates. Collectively, these findings suggest that efforts to curtail applicant attrition by shortening assessment length may be misguided. (PsycINFO Database Record

In the focal article, McKenna and Davis (2009) emphasize the unique value that industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists bring to the practice of executive coaching, noting specifically our tools, which are steeped in theory and research. Although these authors make a case for our ''education and experience as psychologists'' (p. 245), they focus primarily on relating the practice of coaching to psychotherapy. Although we agree with this comparison, we also believe that the tools unique to the I-O psychologist's toolkit warrant more detailed exploration. In this response, we hope to demonstrate how research exploring the ways in which individuals respond to competing demands can be applied to the practice of executive coaching.Developmental goals-those that address both short-and long-term personal and professional growth-are common elements of executive coaching relationships

No abstract