9-1

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

CHAPTER NINECHAPTER NINE

External Selection IIExternal Selection II

Screen graphics created by:Jana F. Kuzmicki, PhD

Troy State University-Florida and Western Region

9-2

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Organization StrategyOrganization Strategy HR and Staffing StrategyHR and Staffing Strategy

Staffing Policies and Programs

Staffing System and Retention Management

Support Activities

Legal compliance

Planning

Job analysis

Core Staffing Activities

Recruitment: External, internal

Selection:Measurement, external, internalEmployment:Decision making, final match

OrganizationVision and Mission

Goals and Objectives

Staffing Organizations ModelStaffing Organizations Model

9-3

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Chapter OutlineChapter Outline

Substantive Assessment Methods

Personality Tests Ability Tests Job Knowledge Tests Performance Tests and Work

Samples Integrity Tests Interest, Values, and Preference

Inventories Structured Interview Constructing a Structured

Interview Assessment for Team and

Quality Environments Clinical Assessments Choice of Substantive Methods

Discretionary Assessment Methods

Contingent Assessment Methods

Collection of Assessment Data

Legal Issues

9-4

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Overview of Personality TestsOverview of Personality Tests

Historical role of personality tests in selection Use of MMPI as a selection tool Current role of personality tests in selection

Role of Big Five -- Taxonomy of personality Used to describe behavioral, as opposed to emotional or

cognitive, traits May capture up to 75% of an individual’s personality

Big Five factors Emotional stability Extraversion Openness to experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness

9-5

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Measures of Personality TestsMeasures of Personality Tests

Surveys

Personal Characteristics Inventory (PCI)

Exh. 9.1: Sample Items for PCI

NEO Personality Inventory

Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)

Projective tests

Interviews

Assessment of reliability and validity

9-6

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of Personality Tests:Evaluation of Personality Tests:Validity of the Big FiveValidity of the Big Five

Conscientiousness predicts performance across all occupational groupings

Emotional stability predicts performance in most occupations, especially sales, management, and teaching

Extraversion predicts performance of salespeople Conscientiousness and emotional stability have

emerged as significant predictors of performance Validity of conscientiousness in predicting job

performance --> ŕ = .31

9-7

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of Personality Tests:Evaluation of Personality Tests:Role of the Big Five in Selection Role of the Big Five in Selection

Conscientiousness and emotional stability predict job performance for many occupational groupsExh. 9.2: Possible Factors Explaining Importance . . .

Except for emotional stability, the other traits do not predict job performance

Key -- Match traits, both in terms of type and level of generality, to criteria being predicted

LimitationsApplicants may distort their responsesPossibility of applicants “faking good”Applicants’ perceptions

9-8

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Exh. 9.2: Possible Factors Explaining ImportanceExh. 9.2: Possible Factors Explaining Importanceof Conscientiousness in Predicting Job Performanceof Conscientiousness in Predicting Job Performance

9-9

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Overview of Ability TestsOverview of Ability Tests

Definition -- Measures that assess an individual’s capacity to function in a certain way

Two typesAptitude - Assess innate capacity to functionAchievement - Assess learned capacity to function

Between 15% and 20% of organizations use some type of ability test in selection

Four classes of ability testsCognitivePsychomotorPhysicalSensory/perceptual

9-10

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Overview of Cognitive Ability TestsOverview of Cognitive Ability Tests

Definition -- Assess abilities involved in thinking, including perception, memory, reasoning, verbal and mathematical abilities, and expression of ideas

Measures of specific cognitive abilities appearto reflect general intelligence, IQ or “g”

Measures of cognitive abilityEmployee Aptitude Survey - Assesses

10 specific cognitive abilitiesWonderlic Personnel Test - Most widely used test of

general mental ability (12-minute, 50-item test) Exh. 9.4: Sample Cognitive Ability Test Items

9-11

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of Cognitive Ability TestsEvaluation of Cognitive Ability Tests

“True” validity --> ŕ = .50 Summary of research findings

Among the most valid methods of selection Appear to generalize across all organizations, all job types,

and all types of applicants Organizations using them enjoy large economic gains

compared to organizations not using them High average validities for many occupations While validity is particularly high for jobs of medium and

high complexity, validity also exists for simple jobs Intelligent employees have greater job knowledge General cognitive ability measures more useful than

measures of specific abilities

9-12

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Limitations of Cognitive Ability TestsLimitations of Cognitive Ability Tests

Concern over adverse impact and fairness of tests

While cognitive ability tests are equally accurate predictors of job performance for various racial and ethnic groups, blacks and Hispanics score lower on these tests than whitesSuggested approach - Use cognitive ability

tests and monitor adverse impact closely

Applicants’ perceptionsReactions to concrete vs. abstract test items

9-13

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Other Types of Ability TestsOther Types of Ability Tests

Psychomotor ability testsMeasure correlation of thought with bodily movement

Physical abilities testsMeasure muscular strength, cardiovascular

endurance, and movement qualityValidity --> ŕ = .39 to ŕ = .87

Sensory/perceptual abilities testsAssess ability to detect and recognize

environmental stimuli Use of computer testing for abilities

9-14

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Job Knowledge TestsJob Knowledge Tests

Definition -- Directly assess an applicant’s comprehension of job requirements

Two types Assess knowledge of duties involved in a particular job Focus on level of experience with, and knowledge about,

critical job tasks and tools necessary to perform a job Exh. 9.8: Example of an Objective Inventory Questionnaire

Evaluation “True” validity --> ŕ = .45 Higher validities for complex jobs Job knowledge measures add little to prediction of job

performance beyond that provided by cognitive ability tests

9-15

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Performance Tests and Work SamplesPerformance Tests and Work Samples

Definition -- Assess actual performance rather than underlying capacity or disposition

Exh. 9.9 - Examples of Performance Tests and Work Samples

Types of testsPerformance test vs. work sampleMotor vs verbal work samplesHigh- vs. low-fidelity testsComputer interaction performance tests

vs. paper-and-pencil testsSituational judgment tests

9-16

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of PerformanceEvaluation of PerformanceTests and Work SamplesTests and Work Samples

Research resultsAverage validity --> ŕ = .54Possess high degree of content validityPerhaps most valid method for many types of jobsWidely accepted by applicantsPossess low degrees of adverse impact

LimitationsCost of realism embedded in work samples is highTied to specific jobs leading to a lack of generalizabilitySafety issuesAssume applicants already possess necessary KSAOs

9-17

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Overview of Integrity TestsOverview of Integrity Tests

Definition -- Attempt to assess an applicant’s honesty and moral character

Two typesClear purpose / overtGeneral purpose / veiled purpose

Exh. 9.10: Sample Integrity Test Questions Use of integrity tests in selection has grown

dramatically during past decade Construct of integrity not well understood

9-18

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Measuring Employee IntegrityMeasuring Employee Integrity

Types of measures

Most common method is paper-and-pencil measures

Polygraph (lie detector) tests

Detect dishonesty in interview process

Paper-and-pencil measures are most feasible for assessing integrity for selection decision

9-19

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Integrity Tests: Research ResultsIntegrity Tests: Research Results

Valid predictors of counterproductive behaviors; validity for clear purpose (ŕ = .55) higher than for general purpose (ŕ = .32)

Both clear and general purpose tests are valid predictors of job performance --> ŕ = .33 and ŕ = .35

Estimates using a predictive validation design and actual detection of theft lowers validity to ŕ = .13

Integrity test scores are related to several Big Five measures

Have no adverse impact against women or minoritiesand are relatively uncorrelated with intelligence

9-20

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Issues Related to Integrity TestsIssues Related to Integrity Tests

Concerns related to useApplicants might fake responsesResearch results related to faking

Objections to integrity tests and applicant reactionsMost fundamental concern is misclassification of truly

honest applicants as being dishonest Exh. 9.11: Integrity Test Results and Theft Detections

Applicants view integrity tests less favorably than most selection practices and more invasive

9-21

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Interest, Values, and Preference InventoriesInterest, Values, and Preference Inventories

Definition -- Involves assessing activities individuals prefer to do both on and off the job

Not often used in selection Types of tests

Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB) Exh. 9.12: Sample Items from Interest Inventory

Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) Evaluation

Average validity --> ŕ = .10Role of interest inventories in selection limitedRole in assessing person-organization fit

9-22

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Overview of Structured InterviewOverview of Structured Interview

Characteristics of unstructured interviewRelatively unplanned and “quick and dirty”Questions based on interviewer “hunches” or “pet

questions” to psychologically diagnose applicantConsists of casual, open-ended, or subjective

questionsContains obtuse questionsContains highly speculative questions Interviewer often unprepared

Sources of error in unstructured interview

9-23

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Characteristics of Structured InterviewCharacteristics of Structured Interview

Questions based on job analysis

Same questions asked of each candidate

Response to each question numerically evaluated

Detailed anchored rating scales used to score each response

Detailed notes taken, focusing on interviewees’ behaviors

9-24

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Characteristics of Structured InterviewCharacteristics of Structured Interview (continued)(continued)

Two typesSituational - Assess applicant’s ability to project his /

her behaviors in future situations Experience-based - Assess past behaviors that are

linked to prospective job Patterned Behavior Description Interview

Similarities between situational and experienced-based interviews

Differences between situational and experienced-based interviews

9-25

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of Structured InterviewEvaluation of Structured Interview

Average validity of interviews --> ŕ = .26

Structured interviews are more valid (ŕ = .31)than unstructured interviews (ŕ = .23)

Situational interviews are more valid (ŕ = .35) than experience-based interviews (ŕ = .28)

Panel interviews were less valid (ŕ = .22)than individual interviews (ŕ = .31)

9-26

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Future Uses of Structured InterviewFuture Uses of Structured Interview

Issue of employee value While performance is the central aspect of

employee value, it is not the only criterion Other relevant criteria -- Applicant reactions, employee

attendance / retention, “citizenship” behaviors, and fit Valuable in predicting “nonperformance” aspects of applicants

Interviews predict subjective performance better than objective measures of productivity

Key question - Structure interview around what? Serves other goals besides identifying best candidate for job Exh. 9.13: An Alternative Model of the Use of the

Interview in Selection Decisions

9-27

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Exh. 9.13: An Alternative Model of theExh. 9.13: An Alternative Model of theUse of the Interview in Selection DecisionsUse of the Interview in Selection Decisions

9-28

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Constructing a Structured InterviewConstructing a Structured Interview

Consult job requirements matrix Develop the selection plan

Exh. 9.14: Partial Selection Plan for Job of Retail Store Sales Associate

Develop structured interview planExh. 9.15: Structured Interview Questions,

Benchmark Responses, Rating Scale, and Question Weights

Select and train interviewers Evaluate effectiveness

9-29

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Assessment for Quality EnvironmentsAssessment for Quality Environments

Companies with TQM missions oftenseem to ignore selection systems

Issues to be addressed in selection processTypes of skills may differSpecificity of skills may differProcess of making selection decisions may differ

Lack of research on staffing inquality environmentsValidation of selection process is important

9-30

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Assessment for Team EnvironmentsAssessment for Team Environments

Establish steps for selection in team-based environmentsDetermine necessary KSAOs for teamwork

Exh. 9.17: Knowledge, Skill, and Ability (KSA) Requirements for Teamwork

Interpersonal KSAs Self-management KSAs

Example Exh. 9.18: Example Items Assessing Teamwork KSAs

Who should make the hiring decision? Critical to ensure proper context is in place

9-31

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Clinical AssessmentsClinical Assessments

DefinitionMethod where a psychologist makes a judgment about

suitability of a candidate for a job Typically used for selecting people for middle- and

upper-level management positions Judgments based on

InterviewPersonal history formAbility testPersonality test

Feedback to company -- Narrative description of candidate, with or without a recommendation

9-32

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Choice of Substantive Assessment MethodsChoice of Substantive Assessment Methods

Exh. 9.19: Evaluation of SubstantiveAssessment Methods

CriteriaUseCostReliabilityValidityUtilityApplicant reactionsAdverse impact

9-33

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Discretionary Assessment MethodsDiscretionary Assessment Methods

Used to separate people who receive job offersfrom list of finalists

Often very subjective, relying heavily on intuitionof decision maker

Factors other than KSAOs are evaluatedAssess person/organization matchAssess people on relevant organizational

citizenship behaviors Should involve organization’s staffing philosophy

regarding EEO/AA commitments

9-34

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Contingent Assessment MethodsContingent Assessment Methods

Contingent methods not always used

Depends on nature of job and legal mandates

Examples

Valid license

Security clearance check

Drug tests

Medical exams

9-35

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Drug TestingDrug Testing

Characteristics and effectiveness

Types of tests

Administration

Exh. 9.20: Example of anOrganizational Drug Testing Program

Smoking

Evaluation

Recommendations: Effective drug testing program

9-36

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Exh. 9.20: Example of anExh. 9.20: Example of anOrganizational Drug Testing ProgramOrganizational Drug Testing Program

9-37

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Medical ExamsMedical Exams

Identifies potential health risks in job candidates Important to ensure medical exams are required

only when a compelling reason existsEnsures people with disabilities unrelated to job

performance are not screened out Use is strictly regulated by ADA Lack validity as procedures vary by doctor Not always job related Often emphasizes short- rather than long-term health New approach -- Job-related medical standards

9-38

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Legal IssuesLegal Issues

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP)

Selection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Drug testing

9-39

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Legal Issues: Uniform Guidelines on Legal Issues: Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP)Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP)

General principles Technical standards Documentation of impact and

validity evidence Definitions Makes substantial demands of a staffing system

Ensures awareness of possibility of adverse impactin employment decisions

If adverse impact is found, mechanisms providedto cope with it

9-40

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Legal Issues: ADA and Drug TestingLegal Issues: ADA and Drug Testing

Selection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)General principlesAccess to job application processReasonable accommodation

to testingMedical examinationsDrug testingUGESP

Drug testing