Predicting Training and Job Performance for Transit Operators

Abstract

Although considerable meta‐analytic research has validated the use of cognitive ability tests, structured interviews, and personality tests with training and job performance criteria, few studies have investigated the validity of these measures with transit operators. There are the only two single studies of concurrent validation research specifically with transit operators. This article presents the results of a predictive validation study conducted with transit operator applicants for a large urban transit authority in Canada. Key knowledge, skills, and abilities were determined for the role and used as a basis for the design and choice of predictors and criteria. Four predictors were used in the study: education, cognitive ability, personality assessment, and structured interview. Criteria included training performance (formative and summative), probationary performance, preventable accidents, and lost time injuries. Validation results supported cognitive ability, structured interview, and several personality factors as predictors of training performance, but less so for job performance. The use of formative training ratings greatly augmented the evidence supporting the predictors beyond typical organizational criteria.

Selection of gender‐incongruent applicants: No gender bias with structured interviews

“…The organization used the performance‐oriented structured interview (POSI)—a highly reliable and valid predictor of job performance (Hausdorf & Risavy, ). The POSI is structured with standardized behavioral‐based interview questions, question probes, space for note‐taking, behaviorally based anchored rating scales, and an interview score based on the summation of question ratings.…”

Understanding subgroup differences with general mental ability tests in employment selection: Exploring socio‐cultural factors across inter‐generational groups

“…Reliabilities as reported by the publisher range from 0.82 to 0.94 for test–retest reliability and 0.73–0.95 for inter‐form reliability (Wonderlic, ). Prior research has supported the predictive validity of this test with training performance for bus drivers (Hausdorf & Risavy, ). The present sample scored on average 18.27 ( SD = 6.46) on the WPT.…”

Comparing financial and social costs for top‐down versus fixed‐band selection: A practical application with bus drivers

“…The predicted cost of failing training was calculated by multiplying the probability of failing training by $14,000. The probability of failing training was calculated using logistic regression estimates based on data collected by Hausdorf and Risavy (). Their dataset was used because it contains training outcomes for the full range of test scores (i.e., true/false positive and true/false negative decisions), whereas the current sample only contains training outcome data for those applicants who passed the test (i.e., true/false positives).…”

“…Despite the large number of studies validating cognitive ability tests for a wide range of jobs, none of the metaanalyses have included bus drivers. To date, only three validity studies have focused on bus drivers (Chung-Yan, Cronshaw & Hausdorf, 2005;Hausdorf & Risavy, 2015;Jacobs, Conte, Day, Silva, & Harris, 1996). Within two concurrent-validation designs, cognitive ability predicted traffic accidents and customer complaints (observed correlations of .11 and À.12 respectively), but not any other job performance criteria (Chung-Yan et al, 2005;Jacobs et al, 1996).…”

“…Within two concurrent-validation designs, cognitive ability predicted traffic accidents and customer complaints (observed correlations of .11 and À.12 respectively), but not any other job performance criteria (Chung-Yan et al, 2005;Jacobs et al, 1996). Within a predictive-validation design, cognitive ability predicted training performance with observed and operational validity coefficients of .28 and .39 (Hausdorf & Risavy, 2015).…”