•How can biodata questionnaires be comparative to cognitive ability tests if it cannot account for the validity discrepancy that is created by honest and fake applicants? Also, I recall in social psychology that people are more likely able to better know about themselves through interpreting others (e.g., social comparison), thus I find the results of only being able to validly report how others view them as making sense. In addition, one is not likely to know their performance level without enough feedback. Maybe that could be part of the issue.
The authors suggest that items with continuous responses are more susceptible to faking. How might we change continuous response items into another scale that is less susceptible to faking?
Often times I think that faking on selection tests is not meant to be deceiving rather people present the best version of themselves. Do you think using biodata measures makes this more or less difficult to do?
I thought this was a well written article, I like the distinction between verifiable and non verifiable questions. With verifiable questions, I often wonder and I'm sure applicants do as well, as to how much organizations actually verify this information? How would they verify this information considering what we talked about in regard to what organizations are willing to disclose about past employees?
Is it possible that people might give inaccurate responses to biodata questions because giving a strictly honest answer would lead to inaccurate conclusions? For example, an applicant might have legitimate concerns that an answer of “yes” to the question, “Have you ever been fired from a job?” might be scored negatively even though the reason for the firing was due to whistle blowing, downsizing, or some kind of discrimination. Given the options, and the assumption (probably correctly) that what the potential employer is really wanting to know is if the applicant was ever fired for unethical behavior or for poor performance, isn’t it possible that the applicant might feel that “no” is a more honest response than is “yes” to the intent of the question?
Wow, Shay, your comment adds to the complexity of how to interpret responses on biodata items. This article stresses that there are so many different ways of verifying information and Shay is adding of interpreting information as well. Is it discouraging to you that there are not easy ways to create biodata items valid for both faking and honest respondents?
•How can biodata questionnaires be comparative to cognitive ability tests if it cannot account for the validity discrepancy that is created by honest and fake applicants? Also, I recall in social psychology that people are more likely able to better know about themselves through interpreting others (e.g., social comparison), thus I find the results of only being able to validly report how others view them as making sense. In addition, one is not likely to know their performance level without enough feedback. Maybe that could be part of the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe authors suggest that items with continuous responses are more susceptible to faking. How might we change continuous response items into another scale that is less susceptible to faking?
ReplyDeleteOften times I think that faking on selection tests is not meant to be deceiving rather people present the best version of themselves. Do you think using biodata measures makes this more or less difficult to do?
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a well written article, I like the distinction between verifiable and non verifiable questions. With verifiable questions, I often wonder and I'm sure applicants do as well, as to how much organizations actually verify this information? How would they verify this information considering what we talked about in regard to what organizations are willing to disclose about past employees?
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that people might give inaccurate responses to biodata questions because giving a strictly honest answer would lead to inaccurate conclusions? For example, an applicant might have legitimate concerns that an answer of “yes” to the question, “Have you ever been fired from a job?” might be scored negatively even though the reason for the firing was due to whistle blowing, downsizing, or some kind of discrimination. Given the options, and the assumption (probably correctly) that what the potential employer is really wanting to know is if the applicant was ever fired for unethical behavior or for poor performance, isn’t it possible that the applicant might feel that “no” is a more honest response than is “yes” to the intent of the question?
ReplyDeleteThe participants in this study consented to performance review. How might this have biased the results?
ReplyDeleteWow, Shay, your comment adds to the complexity of how to interpret responses on biodata items. This article stresses that there are so many different ways of verifying information and Shay is adding of interpreting information as well. Is it discouraging to you that there are not easy ways to create biodata items valid for both faking and honest respondents?
ReplyDelete