A critique and standardization of meta-analytic validity coefficients in personnel selection.
In personnel selection, variations in the interpretation and application of the Hunter and Schmidt meta-analydc procedures often preclude a meaningful comparison between validity coefficients estimated by different meta-analyses. In order to increase the comparability and accuracy of these coeFficic...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Vol. 74; no. 3; pp. 253 - 278 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Sep2001
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=107788743&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 107788743 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 09631798 OOP jtl: Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology issn: 09631798 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Sep2001 vid: 74 iid: 3 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell place: Malden, Massachusetts artinfo: ui: 107788743 107788743 2011317241 10.1348/096317901167352 107788743 ppf: 253 ppct: 25 formats: tig: atl: A critique and standardization of meta-analytic validity coefficients in personnel selection. aug: au: Hermelin E Robertson IT affil: Umversity of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, UK sug: subj: Organizations Personality Assessment Personnel Selection Confidence Intervals Descriptive Statistics Human Meta Analysis Structured Interview Systematic Review ab: In personnel selection, variations in the interpretation and application of the Hunter and Schmidt meta-analydc procedures often preclude a meaningful comparison between validity coefficients estimated by different meta-analyses. In order to increase the comparability and accuracy of these coeFficicnts, a standardized set of procedures and cumulated ardfact distributions were used to correct 20 widely reported meta-analydc validity coefficients estimated for six personnel selecdon methods (using job performance as the criterion). Structured interviews and cognitive ability tests demonstrated the highest operadonal validity. Seventeen of the 20 coefficients were found to be affected by moderators according to the Hunter and Schmidt 75% rule. On average, around 50% of variance In the meta-analydc coefficients was explained by the correctable experimental artifacts of sampling error, direct range restriction in the predictor variable, and criterion unreliability. Limitations of this exercise and its implications for future research and pracdce are discussed. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: meta analysis research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|