•The biodata questionnaire used in this study was not very generalizable. However, I like the positive results in that it proved that the biodata can be a valid concurrent predictor. Do we know that this is continuously a valid predictor across all jobs though?
The authors use the example of questions that can be asked of applicants for an electrician apprenticeship. Questions about whether or not someone took shop classes in high school and how well he or she did appear to have content validity. So does the question about how many times the person had been successful in diagnosing and repairing his or her car. However, it is also plausible that someone might make a very good electrician and yet not have ever worked on a car. Perhaps, he or she does not own one. This is highly plausible for someone who is just out of high school. Wouldn’t a test of cognitive ability, mechanical ability and/or spatial ability be a better indicator of success at learning the electrical trade than experiences working on cars?
I really like the idea of biodata measures as job performance predictors. However, based on this article, it seems like they are incredibly time consuming to create if you want the measure to have good construct and criterion-related validity (although maybe not any more time consuming than other measures). Given this potential downfall, how many organizations use some biodata measure in their selection systems?
I agree with Shay, while a certain bit of "handyness" (i.e., the ability to be handy) would be desirable for an electrician, but I think that skill develops over time. Knowing the intricacies of codes, wires, currents, circuits, etc. would be much more relevant. Many of these questions attempt to profile certain jobs, but how far can this go? Are there some jobs where background data are not predictive?
It’s interesting that people were so apt to use biotests that are not directly job related. Would you ever feel comfortable doing this? If so, what are some issues you would definitely need to consider?
One thing I got out of this article is the importance of using multiple trained experts to generate items for a background data tool with content and construct validity vs the approach of managers constructing a tool based on intuitive experience.
•The biodata questionnaire used in this study was not very generalizable. However, I like the positive results in that it proved that the biodata can be a valid concurrent predictor. Do we know that this is continuously a valid predictor across all jobs though?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe authors use the example of questions that can be asked of applicants for an electrician apprenticeship. Questions about whether or not someone took shop classes in high school and how well he or she did appear to have content validity. So does the question about how many times the person had been successful in diagnosing and repairing his or her car. However, it is also plausible that someone might make a very good electrician and yet not have ever worked on a car. Perhaps, he or she does not own one. This is highly plausible for someone who is just out of high school. Wouldn’t a test of cognitive ability, mechanical ability and/or spatial ability be a better indicator of success at learning the electrical trade than experiences working on cars?
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of biodata measures as job performance predictors. However, based on this article, it seems like they are incredibly time consuming to create if you want the measure to have good construct and criterion-related validity (although maybe not any more time consuming than other measures). Given this potential downfall, how many organizations use some biodata measure in their selection systems?
ReplyDeleteHow might background data selection tools result in adverse impact?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shay, while a certain bit of "handyness" (i.e., the ability to be handy) would be desirable for an electrician, but I think that skill develops over time. Knowing the intricacies of codes, wires, currents, circuits, etc. would be much more relevant. Many of these questions attempt to profile certain jobs, but how far can this go? Are there some jobs where background data are not predictive?
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting that people were so apt to use biotests that are not directly job related. Would you ever feel comfortable doing this? If so, what are some issues you would definitely need to consider?
ReplyDeleteOne thing I got out of this article is the importance of using multiple trained experts to generate items for a background data tool with content and construct validity vs the approach of managers constructing a tool based on intuitive experience.
ReplyDelete