This seems similar to the article we read last class about retesting with general cognitive ability measures. Would it help to take into account the amount of times the applicant has taken each predictor? Or does it really matter because everyone is allowed to retake the predictor tests? That is, if you make it known that everyone can continue to retake the predictors until they get a score they’re ok with, why would these practice effects matter?
I think that retesting needs to be allowed in organizations, as the author indicates the potential societal and moral consequences of not allowing retesting. I wonder how retesting affects the criterion-related validity of the predictor to job performance. That is, if retesting results in lower reliabilities of the predictor outcome, is retesting lowering the potential validity of the test? In addition, are we more concerned from a selection perspective that the applicants are providing desirable responses in the initial testing timeframe, or is it just as valuable to see applicants providing desirable responses after retesting?
How might the state of the economy change how much individual's choose to retest? Do you think there might be a change in the finding that significantly more people within the organization retest compared to those outside the organization? Do you think this might affect the motivation component that was not supported in this study?
I thought the same thing as Shane. Also, should there be a limit on how many times applicants can retest due to restrategizing? In addition, there is a price/fee for each time an applicant retakes a personality test. Wouldn't there be a considerable possible limit then on that notion?
I thought it was interesting to learn that a large hotel and casino chain would use a personality test for selection and that some promotion decisions in companies like this are partially based on personality test scores. I had no idea about that. Responsibility did not predict retest propensity. What are the implications of this article ,i.e. if you were in charge of retesting policies in a large organization?
Although allowing applicants the opportunity to retest is thought to be an element of procedural justice, does this reading and the one from last time on the lack of predictive validity in retests lead to doubts about the general perception of the fairness of retesting?
It would be interesting to see if developing parallel forms of a test would reduce some of the practice effects that were observed. If this was shown to work, do you think that making parallel tests would be practical? That is, worth the added cost of test construction…
This seems similar to the article we read last class about retesting with general cognitive ability measures. Would it help to take into account the amount of times the applicant has taken each predictor? Or does it really matter because everyone is allowed to retake the predictor tests? That is, if you make it known that everyone can continue to retake the predictors until they get a score they’re ok with, why would these practice effects matter?
ReplyDeleteI think that retesting needs to be allowed in organizations, as the author indicates the potential societal and moral consequences of not allowing retesting. I wonder how retesting affects the criterion-related validity of the predictor to job performance. That is, if retesting results in lower reliabilities of the predictor outcome, is retesting lowering the potential validity of the test? In addition, are we more concerned from a selection perspective that the applicants are providing desirable responses in the initial testing timeframe, or is it just as valuable to see applicants providing desirable responses after retesting?
ReplyDeleteHow might the state of the economy change how much individual's choose to retest? Do you think there might be a change in the finding that significantly more people within the organization retest compared to those outside the organization? Do you think this might affect the motivation component that was not supported in this study?
ReplyDeleteI thought the same thing as Shane. Also, should there be a limit on how many times applicants can retest due to restrategizing? In addition, there is a price/fee for each time an applicant retakes a personality test. Wouldn't there be a considerable possible limit then on that notion?
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting to learn that a large hotel and casino chain would use a personality test for selection and that some promotion decisions in companies like this are partially based on personality test scores. I had no idea about that.
ReplyDeleteResponsibility did not predict retest propensity. What are the implications of this article ,i.e. if you were in charge of retesting policies in a large organization?
Although allowing applicants the opportunity to retest is thought to be an element of procedural justice, does this reading and the one from last time on the lack of predictive validity in retests lead to doubts about the general perception of the fairness of retesting?
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see if developing parallel forms of a test would reduce some of the practice effects that were observed. If this was shown to work, do you think that making parallel tests would be practical? That is, worth the added cost of test construction…
ReplyDelete