Several recent articles have suggested that assessments of the relative importance of different abilities or competencies to a job have little bearing on the criterion‐related validity of these selection tests that measure those abilities. We hypothesize that selection test batteries chosen to maximize the judged importance of knowledge, skills, and abilities will not predict performance better than batteries of tests chosen at random. The results in two independent samples consistently show that the validity of test batteries chosen based on subject matter expert judgments of importance is not different from the validity of batteries of a comparable number of tests chosen at random from a set of intercorrelated tests, or even those chosen to provide the worst possible match between test content and job content.
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.