Meta-Analysis of Clerical Performance Predictors: Still stable after all these years

Abstract

Pearlman, Schmidt, and Hunter (1980) published a seminal paper on the validity of various measures for predicting performance in clerical jobs. They concluded that for both job and training performance criteria, 10 types of tests (e.g., perceptual speed, clerical aptitude, verbal ability) predicted performance across 5 clerical job families. This paper describes a psychometric meta-analysis of validity studies using similar measures for clerical jobs conducted since 1980 to examine the stability of Pearlman and colleagues' validity estimates. This paper contributes to the literature by investigating the long-term stability of validity generalization estimates over a period of several decades. Clerical jobs provide a compelling case study because these jobs have changed considerably due to the increased use of computers and technology in the office environment. Results showed that the mean population estimates in the present study were consistent with, or higher than, those obtained by Pearlman and colleagues, thus demonstrating the long-term stability of metaanalytic estimates of validity. The relative stability of the validity estimates also supports the robustness of g as a predictor, even as jobs change over time.

Gender Differences in Work Sample Assessments: Not All Tests Are Created Equal

“…Bobko & Roth, 2013), very little research has done so when considering gender-based group differences (Roth et al, 2010). Finally, no research has examined mean gender differences in work sample assessments of constructs that are frequently used to select personnel into clerical positions (Pearlman et al, 1980;Whetzel et al, 2011). In the present study, we addressed these gaps by examining gender differences in a diverse array of clerical work sample tests using a sample of job applicants.…”

“…As prior research in this area has already considered technical skills (Roth et al, 2010), we begin our review with this construct. We then review skills and abilities that, while commonly used to select clerical personnel in applied settings (Pearlman et al, 1980;Whetzel et al, 2011), have not been the focus of research into mean gender differences (i.e., typing skills, verbal comprehension, spatial abilities).…”

“…While assessments of these constructs are frequently used in applied contexts for selecting personnel into clerical positions (Pearlman, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1980;Whetzel et al, 2011), with the exception of technical skills (Roth et al, 2010), research has not considered gender differences in work sample assessments of these constructs. We address this gap in the present study.…”

On the myth and the reality of the temporal validity degradation of general mental ability test scores

“…In fact, a recent meta-analysis by Whetzel and colleagues (Whetzel et al, 2011) addressed this exact issue. Specifically, they noted that the investigation of predictive validity coefficients for clerical jobs provides a "compelling case study given the large-scale sociotechnical changes that have affected clerical jobs.…”

“…Individual differences in g (i.e., the general mental ability factor) are often shown to be a strong determinant of outcomes in a wide array of settings, including occupational (Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2004;Salgado, Anderson, Moscoso, Bertua, & De Fruyt, 2003;Schmidt & Hunter, 1998;Whetzel et al, 2011), academic (Kuncel et al, 2004;Kuncel & Hezlett, 2007;Sackett, Kuncel, Arneson, Cooper, & Waters, 2009), health (Anstey, Low, Christensen, & Sachdev, 2009;Deary, Whiteman, Starr, Whalley, & Fox, 2004;Der, Batty, & Deary, 2009;Gottfredson, 2004), and epidemiological outcomes (e.g., Batty, Deary, & Gottfredson, 2007;Eppig, Fincher, & Thornhill, 2011;Reeve, 2009;Reeve & Basalik, 2010). Despite the evidence indicating a robust and pervasive influence of g on a wide range of life outcomes, there remain questions surrounding the temporal stability of validity coefficients associated with general mental ability (GMA) test scores.…”