The validity of personnel assessments by professional psychologists.

Abstract

For a sample of 100 persons assessed over a two-year period, predictor and criterion ratings were obtained on five rating scales. The predictor ratings were made by two psychologists from the case files, the criterion ratings by one or more of the assessees' superiors. In addition, the criterion ratings were correlated with a large test battery. " . . . These general conclusions are drawn: (1) Compared with most validity findings these results are promising and indicate that the technique investigated has practical value and is definitely worthy of further research. (2) When the research is more rigorously conducted, the resulting estimates of validity are likely to be higher."

A Review of Structure in the Selection Interview

“…Ratings are made on dimensions, ranging from 2 to 12 or more, based on answers to multiple questions or on the entire interview. This level is less structured than rating every answer because judgments are not as linked to individual answers, and there are usually fewer scales than questions so fewer ratings are made, Due to flexibility, this level is used in interviews that span the range of structure on other components, including highly structured (Robertson et al, 1990;Walters et al, 1993), moderately structured ( h e y et al, 1987; Barrett et al, 1967;Borman, 1982;Grove, 1981;Hakel, 1971;Jam, 1982;Landy, 1976;Mayfield et al, 1980;Orpen, 1985;Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995;Reynolds, 1979;Roth & J. Campion, 1992;Yonge, 1956;Zedeck et al, 1983), and fairly unstructured (Anderson, 1954;Bolanovich, 1944;Campbell, 1962;Dougherty et al, 1986;Drucker, 1957;DuBois & Watson, 1950;Fisher et al, 1967;Freeman et al, 1942;Glaser, Schwarz, & Flanagan, 1958;Hilton et al, 1955;Hovland & Wonderlic, 1939;Huse, 1962;Komives et al, 1984;Maas, 1965;Morse & Hawthorne, 1946;Rafferty & Deemer, 1950;Raines & Rohrer, 1955;Reeb, 1969;Shaw, 1952;'Ikankell, 1959;"Ibbiana & Ben-Shakhar, 1982;Waldron, 1974).…”

“…The higher level of structure is the panel interview (M. Campion et al, 1988Campion et al, , 1994Drucker, 1957;DuBois & Watson, 1950;Edwards et al, 1990;Flynn & Peterson, 1972;Freeman et al, 1942;Glaser et al, 1958;Green et al, 1993;Landy, 1976;Latham & Saari, 1984;Latham et al, 1980;Latham & Skarlicki, 1995;Lowry, 1994;Morse & Hawthorne, 1946;Nevo & Berman, 1994;Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995;Reynolds, 1979;Roth & J. Campion, 1992;Stohr-Gillmore et al, 1990;Vernon, 1950), or the serial interview (Bobbitt & Newman, 1944;Borman, 1982;Dougherty et al, 1986;Gardner & Williams, 1973;Handyside & Duncan, 1954;Hilton et al, 1955;Huse, 1962;Bankell, 1959). The lower level is one interviewer.…”

A survey of assessor beliefs and practices related to faking

“…Research on individual assessment has focused either on criterion-related validity (Albrecht et al, 1964;Dicken and Black, 1965;Gordon, 1967;Hilton et al, 1955;Meyer, 1956;Miner, 1970) or individual assessment practices (Ryan, 1992;Ryan and Sackett, 1987, 1992. The purpose of the current study is to extend past research on individual assessment validity and practices to a study of faking issues on personality inventories associated with individual assessments.…”

The Validity of Individual Psychological Assessments for Entry-Level Police and Firefighter Positions

“…However, unlike other selection tools, the research on IPAs has been sparse. For more than 50 years, researchers have been calling for more empirical evidence to support the use of IPAs for personnel selection (e.g., Hilton, Bolin, Parker, Taylor, & Walker, 1955). The current study answers the call for research by conducting an in-depth validation of one consulting firm's IPA process.…”