Meta-analysis of biodata in employment settings: Providing clarity to criterion and construct-related validity estimates.

Abstract

Although biodata inventories have long been used to hire job applicants, there are limitations to current biodata knowledge and little in the way of contemporary biodata meta-analytic reviews. This study establishes a precise understanding of biodata validity by conducting an updated meta-analysis that differentiates biodata validity in terms of two important defining features: construct domain and scoring method (rational, hybrid, empirical). Evidence was established in terms of criterion-related validity with job performance and additional work outcomes, as well as convergent validity with common external hiring measures. In total, 180 independent samples of criterion correlations were examined, and 63 samples were analyzed containing correlations with convergent measures. Findings across the meta-analyses revealed that biodata inventories are one of the most predictive assessment methods available, but that the relationship with work outcomes differs by construct domain and scoring method. Empirically scored overall composite scales had superior criterion-related validity (ρ = .44) to rationally scored composite scales (ρ = .24). Scales developed to measure conscientiousness and leadership were generally the most predictive of the job performance of the narrow construct domains, and particularly when empirically keyed. However, when biodata scores were correlated with theoretically aligned performance ratings, rational scoring resulted in similar validity coefficients as empirical scoring. Finally, biodata scales exhibited expected patterns of correlations with external measures and were only modestly correlated with cognitive ability and five-factor model personality scores. Taken together, biodata inventories are highly predictive assessment methods and are likely to provide unique variance over other common predictors.

Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range.

“…From that meta-analysis we accept their value of .35 as the estimate of operational validity. Speer et al (2021) provided a new meta-analysis of biodata-job performance relationships. They obtained a mean observed validity of .27 for a biodata composite score, increasing to .37 correcting for measurement error in the criterion using the mean value of .52 drawn from Viswesvaran et al (1996).…”

A meta-analysis on air traffic controllers selection: cognitive and non-cognitive predictors

“…However, ranking of predictors is the same in both analyses : work sample and cognitive abilities have a better predictive power than non-cognitive abilities. A recent meta-analysis (Speer et al, 2021) focused on biodata, our results will be compared.…”

“…As such, motivation can be averaged with one personality trait or two or with experience. To our knowledge, no meta-analysis has studied non-cognitive composite but biodata composites were included in Speer et al (2021). Non-cognitive composite can be composed by biodata but others data also.…”

Analysis of a brief biodata scale as a predictor of job performance and its incremental validity over the Big Five and Dark Tetrad personality traits

“…, 16]. A recent meta-analysis reports correlations with overall performance ratings between .24 and .44 [13]. This data has been reviewed, suggesting an operational validity value of .35, which places biodata among the most recommendable personnel selection procedures [17].…”

“…This is due to broader considerations of biodata, including items related to opinions, attitudes, or general situations that become very close to personality scale items [11], losing the biographical character of biodata that differentiates it from other constructs. A solution to this problem is to focus only on past experiences, behaviors, and feelings in specific situations [12,13], which is also related to recent calls to gather fair, legal, and bias-free information in personnel selection [3].…”