•Have negative psychological reactions to any biodata items been considered? For instance, if an applicant is taking a biodata questionnaire and is asked about his or her previous employment which involved them being sexually harassed, this might create a very negative reaction from the applicant and maybe hurt their ability to finish the test or to finish it correctly.
How might organizations go about developing theoretically relevant items pools to use as items for background data? How do they deal with the time-consuming nature of these processes?
Do you think procedural justice would be an issue if a company were to use non-theory based item pools, even if the company explained that they were valid predictors of performance?
The authors made the case for using theory-based approaches when writing and validating biographical data when the criterion was college GPA. Job performance is not so easily quantifiable as a single narrowly defined construct such college success defined as GPA. How might this influence the transferability of this study's findings to job selection?
I agree with Vicki, this seems like a very time consuming process. Are these common practices in the actual organizational setting? Would these findings translate to a different sample, i.e., one not using undergrads?
Not only is the work of identifying quality items with meaningful inferences time consuming, it changes as the work world changes, the authors point out! How do we build in periodic evaluation of predictors and criteria (e.g. every 5-10 years) into the rhythm of selection practice?
•Have negative psychological reactions to any biodata items been considered? For instance, if an applicant is taking a biodata questionnaire and is asked about his or her previous employment which involved them being sexually harassed, this might create a very negative reaction from the applicant and maybe hurt their ability to finish the test or to finish it correctly.
ReplyDeleteHow might organizations go about developing theoretically relevant items pools to use as items for background data? How do they deal with the time-consuming nature of these processes?
ReplyDeleteDo you think procedural justice would be an issue if a company were to use non-theory based item pools, even if the company explained that they were valid predictors of performance?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe authors made the case for using theory-based approaches when writing and validating biographical data when the criterion was college GPA. Job performance is not so easily quantifiable as a single narrowly defined construct such college success defined as GPA. How might this influence the transferability of this study's findings to job selection?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Vicki, this seems like a very time consuming process. Are these common practices in the actual organizational setting? Would these findings translate to a different sample, i.e., one not using undergrads?
ReplyDeleteThe authors found that the best tests are developed based on theory. What are some of the legal implications of their findings?
ReplyDeleteNot only is the work of identifying quality items with meaningful inferences time consuming, it changes as the work world changes, the authors point out!
ReplyDeleteHow do we build in periodic evaluation of predictors and criteria (e.g. every 5-10 years) into the rhythm of selection practice?