Data has been complied from a variety of sources to estimate the significance of each phase of the hiring process in the selection of people who will become successful, competent, and productive employees.
0.00 for a Flip of a Coin
0.14 for an Interview Only
0.26 after adding Background Checks
0.38 after adding Personality Testing
0.54 after adding Abilities Testing
0.66 after adding Interest Testing
0.75 after adding Job Match Testing
Sender: Management Education and Development Discussion
From: Pearl Hilliard (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Subject: Cognitive Flexibility in Ill-Structured Problem
Kim, the structured manner of your selection process is vital to obtaining reasonably predictive results from interviews. I agree that the interviews in the medical study mentioned must have been very unsystematic and arbitrary. However, the predictive validities you quote seem low. I believe Hunter & Hunter's study is old - about 1984?
There is a more recent review: Schmidt, Fl. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274. The validities of various personnel selection procedures in predicting overall job performance are calculated. Some of them are:
0.00 for a flip of a coin
0.18 for Job Experience (years)
0.38 for Unstructured Interviews
0.41 for Integrity Tests
0.51 for General Mental Ability Tests
0.51 for Structured Interviews
0.54 for Work Sample Tests
A meta-analysis [Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.] concludes that supervisory ratings have a predictive validity of: 0.41.
HR Manager DPS,
"What cannot be measured cannot be managed" (Anonymous)
"The 0.14 coefficient you are reporting is likely from Hunter & Hunter '84, which suffered from various methodological problems. More recently, research has demonstrated that interviews can be among the best predictors of performance. The following are criterion-related validity coefficients for employment interviews that were published in the professional literature: Pulakos & Schmitt (1995) 0.52; Campion, Campion, and Hudson (1994) 0.56; Roth & J. Campion (1992) 0.41;Campion, Pursell, and Brown. (1988) 0.56."
Human Resource Group
- Campion, M. A., Campion, J. E., & Hudson, P. J. (1994). Structured interviewing: A note on incremental validity and alternative question types. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 998-1002.
- Campion, M., Pursell, E., & Brown, B. (1988). Structured interviewing: Raising the psychometric properties of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 41, 25-42.
- Huffcutt A. I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184-190.
- Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.
- Pulakos, E D, & Schmitt, N. (1995). Experienced-based and situational interview questions: Studies of validity. Personnel Psychology, 48, 289-308.
- See also: McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599-616.
- validity for interviews (especially structured ones) is often around 0.34 before they are corrected for range restriction and criterion unreliability (see Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994, Journal of Applied Psychology).
Use your browsers Back button to return to the page you came from.
This page's address is:
and click here for complete address and telephone
numbers for Gately Consulting.