Individual Psychological Assessment: The Poster Child of Blended Science and Practice

Abstract

We share with Silzer and Jeanneret (2011) the belief that individual psychological assessment (IPA) is an integral and valuable part of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Silzer and Jeanneret provide strong data about the pervasiveness of the practice of IPA in our field and they point out that it is most frequently practiced at higher organizational levels, where each position is complex and unique, where the requirements for success are multifaceted, and where, as a result, there are no ''perfect'' candidates who fit all the requirements. We see this widespread, executivelevel practice as an important opportunity to make a direct, visible, and significant impact on leaders and organizations. This is very much in line with the SIOP vision of advancing the science, practice, and visibility of the psychology of work. In fact, we believe there are few better opportunities for I-O to have significant impact than working directly with executives, as they serve as the gateway for I-O research to impact multiple organizational systems, creating better workplaces and more effective organizations. Because IPA can make significant contributions to SIOP's stated vision and goals, we strongly agree that it should be

Individual Psychological Assessment: A Core Competency for Industrial–Organizational Psychology

“…In a classic selection validation model for entry level jobs, one or more measures of job performance have served as the criteria. These are the types of validity studies and meta‐analyses relied upon by Hazucha et al (2011), Kuncel and Highhouse (2011), and Morris et al (2011). We have noted the design and criteria problems associated with criterion‐related validation studies for IPA (especially at the executive level), and both Lowman and Tippins have extended these arguments (i.e., what about those not selected, small sample size, job variation, and what is actually being predicted).…”

“…Although this could provide some useful research opportunities and increase assessment reliability, it may not include the predictor information that is the most relevant to a specific position. In fact, Hazucha et al (2011) go one step further and streamline the measurement process to only collect observations of data that have high correlations with a generalized competency. Although training assessors to focus on the most competency‐relevant behaviors makes sense, it does raise a question of how often those relationships must be reexamined and adjusted to changing competency definitions, standards, and expectations, and to different organizations, levels, positions, and functions.…”

“…Research studies need to pursue fair comparisons and not use research designs that are biased in favor of the statistical approach (see Silzer & Jeanneret, 2011, p. 270). Hazucha et al (2011) suggest how clinicians versus computers could be best used at different points. Figure 1 provides a suggested IPA process model where clinical judgment and mechanical methods might be most helpful.…”

“…There is evidence that experienced clinicians can make accurate judgments about individuals (Spengler et al 2009). However, there is little available published research evidence on mechanical integration methods in individual assessment (the Hazucha et al 2011 studies remain unpublished). There may be opportunities to introduce mechanical methods at some steps (beyond data collection), but one should not compromise the ability to capture and consider data that is contextual, specific, and relevant to an IPA.…”

“…Only Roller and Morris (2008) and Hazucha et al (2011) report any validity studies related to individual assessment. Unfortunately both studies are unpublished.…”