The purpose of this paper is to provide new data regarding the current staffing practices being used by organizations in Canada and the United States (US) as well as a comparison with existing data from Germany (Diekmann & König, 2015). Data regarding the beliefs of human resource (HR) practitioners in terms of using personality tests in personnel selection is also provided. A geographically representative sample of 453 HR practitioners across Canada and the US were surveyed. Although general mental ability testing has previously been found to be highly valid and cost effective, this selection tool was among the least commonly used in all three countries. Personality tests were also rarely used (especially in Canada and the US) and research–practice gaps still appear to be an issue (e.g., HR practitioners’ preference for personality types as opposed to traits).
This study examined criterion-related validity for job-related composites of forced-choice personality scores against job performance using both Thurstonian Item Response Theory (TIRT) and Classical Test Theory (CTT) scoring methods. Correlations were computed across 11 different samples that differed in job or role within a job. A meta-analysis of the correlations (k = 11 and N = 613) found a higher average corrected correlation for CTT (mean ρ = .38) than for TIRT (mean ρ = .00). Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Abstract. After nearly two decades of awareness on the research–practice gap in human resource management, this study updates and expands on the seminal findings of Rynes et al. (2002) specific to personnel selection. In a sample of 453 human resource (HR) practitioners in the US and Canada, we found that the research–practice gap persists. Notably, compared to the 2002 findings, HR practitioners tended to be worse at identifying personnel selection myths than was shown by Rynes et al. over 15 years ago, while those who reported not conducting validity studies were surprisingly better at identifying several myths as false. Several potential avenues for advancement are suggested in light of the disturbing stubbornness of the research–practice gap in personnel selection.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.