Unlocking the Key to Biodata Scoring: A Comparison of Empirical, Rational, and Hybrid Approaches at Different Sample Sizes

Abstract

The criterion-related validities of empirical, rational, and hybrid keying procedures for a biodata inventory were compared at different sample sizes. Rational keying yielded the lowest validities. Hybrid keying performed best at the smallest sample sizes studied, followed by empirical keying at moderate sizes, and stepwise regression weighting of items at the largest sample sizes.

Generalization of Cognitive and Noncognitive Validities across Personality‐based Job Families

“…However, since the existing IAR measures five factors, we decided to include scales measuring these factors in the analyses. As empirical (and hybrid) keying tends to maximize the criterion‐related validity of biodata inventories (Cucina et al, ; Mitchell & Klimoski, ), we suspect that many items will emerge as predictors of the two criteria above and beyond the factor‐based scales.…”

Scoring Biodata: Is it rational to be quasi‐rational?

“…The rational key created by Cucina, Caputo, Thibodeaux, and MacLane (2012) was used, whereby three raters individually rated each response option on a scale ranging from 1 (performance is poor, consistently substandard) to 10 (performance is extremely good, consistently superior). The raters then met to reach consensus for all item response options.…”

Applying theory to the black box: A model for empirically scoring biodata

“…Although biodata can be developed rationally to measure specific constructs (e.g., Mumford et al, ; Oswald et al, ; Reiter‐Palmon & Connelly, ; Stricker & Rock, ), applying some degree of empirical keying has been shown to result in improved prediction of desired criteria (Cucina, Caputo, Thibodeaux, & MacLane, ; Cucina, Caputo, Thibodeaux, MacLane, & Bayless, ; Karas & West, ; Mitchell & Klimoski, ; Reiter‐Palmon & Connelly, ). However, such empirical keying leaves users with predictive test content but at the expense of a thorough understanding of what the scale is measuring and in what contexts the developed scale scores' predictiveness will generalize.…”

“…Biodata assessments use a self‐report method of measurement based on the premise that past behavior predicts future behavior and the outcomes of those behaviors, and as such uses questions about a person's life history (Breaugh, ; Cucina et al, ; Mael, ). Early accounts of biodata instruments go back to the 19th century, where they were used for the hiring of insurance agents (Stokes, ).…”