4.

3C Personnel selection - Group 1

Names:
● Sterre van Beek
● Luca Haaks
● Dejan Agovic
● Zoe Sou

Problem 1 - From organizational goals to operational predictors

Organizational Conceptional Operational criteria(be Conceptual Operational predictors(be
goals Criteria specific, percentage) predictors specific)

Patient care Social skills - Measuring successful
(pleasant/comforting)
conversation with a patient
by asking them afterwards
- Nurse should be able to
speak Dutch and English
properly
- Extraversion - Filling in the Big Five
- Languages Questionnaire, the predictor will
known be the score on extraversion in
the questionnaire
- Language test that measures
Dutch and English language
skills

Provide Specific - Patients successfully - Relevant - Successful interaction with a

treatment knowledge in treated, this is measured by education difficult patient (roleplay)
nursing and seeing how many patients completed - Evidence like CV, jobs related
they related to to nursing, years worked as a
medical field
fed/bathed/dressed/groomed/ nursing nurse
moved/patients changed - work - Recommendation letters
linens in a day experience in
- And measure mistakes in the medical
the acts we mentioned above field

Efficiency - Planning - A supervisor measures how
- Using well the nurse works with
technology the PDA that contains apps
(robotic
for scheduling (supervisor
coworker)
- multitasking ratings)
-How many patients the
nurse successfully
fed/bathed/dressed/groomed/
moved patients/changed
linens in a day (measure of
planning and multitasking)
- The nurse - A roleplay where the nurse
knows how to works with a PDA with the apps
work with the related to nursing installed that
are needed for the nursing job
apps on the
(the performance is measured by
PDA related to supervisor ratings during the
nursing roleplay)
- -Big five questionnaire
Conscientiousn → score on conscientiousness
ess and neuroticism
-Low - Test knowledge about working
neuroticism with a schedule. That is assessed
by a supervisor.- A roleplay
where the nurse has to perform
multiple tasks simultaneously.
The nurse is assessed on her
performance by a supervisor;
supervisor rating).
Problem 2 - There just are too many who want to study medicine
After their high-school exam, 400 pupils submit an application for the university study of
Medicine. Unfortunately for them, there is a numerus fixus of 150 positions at the university, and
therefore only 150 out of the 400 can be admitted.

The university can choose one out of several possible ways of selecting those 150 pupils. It will
choose one out of the following:
1. First, the university may decide to use a weighted version of random selection, where a
student's chance to be selected depends on the category of high-school exam result the
student is in.
2. Second, the university may want to use merit selection: top-down selection of the best
pupils according to their high-school exam results.
3. Third, the university may select the pupils at random, irrespective of their high-school
exam results, simply by drawing of lots.
4. Fourth, the university may use a quasi-random basis of choice, such as first come first
chosen.

Question:
1. Each choice will have a different outcome. Fill out the following table:
2. What are the numbers of admitted pupils in each category (I, II, III, IV) when weighted
random selection is used?
a. Answer: See table admitted pupils
3. What are the chances and numbers of admitted pupils per category when optimal merit
selection is used?
a. Answer: See table (chances and number of admitted pupils).
4. idem, but now for random selection?
a. Answer: See table (chances and number of admitted pupils)
5. Try to estimate the chances and numbers of admitted pupils per category under the
condition that the university uses the principle of “first come, first chosen”. Which
assumption do you need to make in your estimations? How strong/ weak is this
assumption, do you think?
a. Answer: All groups apply equally as fast, because they are motivated on the same
level
6. Draw the results for each of the type of decisions in a figure, with on the x-axis the four
categories (I – IV) of high-school exam results, and on the y-axis the chance of getting
accepted
a. Answer: See chart in type of decisions made
7. Which choice would you make if you were the university? And if you were one of the
pupils? Present your arguments with your answers.
a. University: Optimal merit selection, you get the students with the highest
average. Therefore, the students with the higher success rate as well as the best
 performing student. A university wants a lot of students to graduate since they get
a subsidy from the government when their pupils graduate.
b. Pupils: First come first chosen, because then it is not dependent on the grades and
only on being motivated enough to apply first.

Category I II III IV

Average high-school exam X <6 6<X<7 7<X<8 X>8

marks

Number of applications 75 150 100 75

Four types of applications

1. Weighted random selection:

Chances 0.13 0.24 0.45 0.79

Number of admitted pupils 0.13*75 = 9.75 .24*150 = 36 0.45*100 = 45 0.79*75 = 59.25

10 admitted 36 admitted 45 admitted 59 admitted
pupils pupils pupils pupils

2. Optimal merit selection:

Chances 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.00

Number of admitted pupils No pupils No pupils 0.75*100= 75 1*75 pupils

admitted admitted 75 admitted 75 pupils
pupils admitted

3. Random selection:

Chances 150:400 = 0.375 150:400 = 0.375 150:400 = 0.375 150:400 = 0.375

Number of admitted pupils 0.375*75 = 0.375*150 = 0.375*100 = 0.375*75 =

28,125 56.25 37.5 28.125
28 admitted 56 admitted 38 admitted 28 admitted
pupils pupils pupils pupils

4. First come, first chosen:

Chances 150:400 = 0.375 150:400 = 0.375 150:400 = 0.375 150:400 = 0.375

Number of admitted pupils 0.375*75 = 0.375*150 = 0.375*100 = 0.375*75 =

28,125 56.25 37.5 28.125
28 admitted 56 admitted 37 admitted 28 admitted
pupils pupils pupils pupils
Problem 3 - Random selection versus selection with a test
b = (P(VP) = (BR * SR + phi √BR * (1-BR) * SR * (1 - SR)
I Use the computational formula of the above phi coefficient, to calculate the two decision
outcomes under the following circumstances:

Circumstance A:

Success/Satisfactory/Suited A 25 B 475
500 --> .50 P (FN) .025 ( = 25:1000) P(VP) .475 ( = 475:1000)

Failure/unsatisfactory/ C 25 D 475
Unsuited P(VN) .025 ( = 25:1000) P (FP) .475 ( = 475:1000)
500 --> .50

Reject 50 - .05 Accept 950 - .95

b = (P(VP) = (BR * SR + phi √BR * (1-BR) * SR * (1 - SR)

1000 candidates, 500 suited applicants, 950 applicants are accepted

1. Candidates are accepted and rejected on an entirely random basis.
a. You don’t use any test battery → no selection procedure. That is why phi is zero.
The test battery doesn’t take someone’s grades into account and it doesn’t
measure their motivation either.
b. Everything = 0
2. For the selection of candidates, a test battery is used with a predictive validity of .180.
a. BR = a + b = .025 + .475 = .500
b. SR= b + d = .475 + .475 = .950
c. Test validity = .180
b = (.500 * .950) + .180 √.500 * (1-.500) * .950 * (1 - .950) = .478
d. b= .478
e. Proportion valid outcomes: b + c = .475 + .025 = .500
f. Success ratio (SU) = b/ (b + d) = .478/(.478+.475) = .502
3. What is the improvement in the proportion of correct decisions with a predictive validity
of .180 in comparison to completely random selection? And the improvement in SU?
a. First we fill in the formula for a validity of .000 → this is the validity for a
completely random selection. We also calculate the SU as well
b = (.500 * .950) + 0 √.500 * (1-.500) * .950 * (1 - .950) = .475
Proportion valid outcomes: b + c = .475 + .025 = .500
Success ratio (SU) = b / (b + d) = .475 / (.475 + .475) = .500

b. Then we compare this to the formula with a predictive validity of .180

b = (.500 * .950) + .180 √.500 * (1-.500) * .950 * (1 - .950) = .495
Proportion valid outcomes: b + c = .478 + .025 = .540
Success ratio (SU) = b/ (b + d) = .478 / (.478+.475) = .521
 c. So, if the predictive validity is .180 then the proportion valid outcomes and the
success ratio (SU) stay the same. Because a predictive validity of .180 is not that
high. If the predictive validity would have been a higher number say .920 then the
equation after Phi would have caused for a higher b. Now this wasn’t seen
because Phi was close to 0.
Increment in percentage correct decisions is 4% [0.04; namely from .50
to .54]; increment in SU = 2% [0.02; namely from .50 to .52]. These values
are low. This has to do with the much too high SR: almost everyone has to be
hired. You can see that the SU under (2) hardly deviates from the base rate
(=% suitable if everyone would have been accepted).

Circumstance B:

Success/Satisfactory/Suited A 38 ( = .04 * 950) B 2 ( = .04 * 50)

40 → (40:1000) = .040 P (FN) .038 ( = 38:1000) P(VP) .002 ( = 2:1000)

Failure/unsatisfactory/ C 912 ( = .960 * 950) D 48 ( = .960 * 50)

Unsuited p(VN) .912 ( = 912:1000) P (FP) .048 ( = 48:1000)
960 → (960:1000) = .960

Reject 950 - .950 Accept 50 - .05

1000 candidates, 40 suited applicants, 50 applicants are accepted

1. Candidates are accepted and rejected on an entirely random basis.
a. You don’t use any test battery → no selection procedure. That is why phi is zero.
The test battery doesn’t take someone’s grades into account and it doesn’t
measure their motivation either.
2. For the selection of candidates, a test battery is used with a predictive validity of .180.
a. BR = a + b = .038 + .002 = .040
b. SR= b + d = .002 + .048 = .050
c. Test validity = .180
b = (P(VP) = (BR * SR + phi √BR * (1-BR) * SR * (1 - SR)
b = (.040 * .050 + .180 √.040 * (1-.040) * .050 * (1 - .050)
d. b= .003
e. Proportion valid outcomes: b + c = .003 + .912 = .915
f. Success ratio (SU) = b/ (b + d) = .003/ (.003 + .048) = .059
3. What is the improvement in the proportion of correct decisions with a predictive validity
of .180 in comparison to completely random selection? And the improvement in SU?
a. First we fill in the formula for a validity of .000 → this is the validity for a
completely random selection. Then b = 0.002, if we calculate b with phi = .180
you get b = 0.003.
b = (.040 * .050 + 0 √.040 * (1-.040) * .050 * (1 - .050) = .002
 Proportion valid outcomes: b + c = .002 + .912 = .914
Success ratio (SU) = b / (b + d) = .002 / (.002 + .048) = .040

b. Then we compare this to the formula with a predictive validity of .180

b = (.040 * .050 + .180 √.040 * (1-.040) * .050 * (1 - .050) = .010
Proportion valid outcomes: b + c = .003 + .912 = .930
Success ratio (SU) = b/ (b + d) = .003 / (.003 + .048) = .200

c. So, if the predictive validity is .180 then the proportion valid outcomes and the
success ratio (SU) stay the same. Because a predictive validity of .180 is not that
high. If the predictive validity would have been a higher number say .920 then the
equation after Phi would have caused for a higher b. Now this wasn’t seen
because Phi was close to 0.
Increment in percentage correct decisions is 1.6% [0.016]; increment in SU =
16% [0.160]. In short, we are more impressed with the improvements in
terms of SU than in terms of the increment in percentage correct decisions.
SU is more important to companies than b + c, because b + c also includes c,
which refers to correct rejection. Companies are often less interested in c
("we will never see these rejected applicants again"). Because c was already a
good percentage with random selection, the increase in percentage correct
decisions because of using a more valid test battery is less prominent than the
effect in terms of SU.

II Under which of the two circumstances (A or B) is the improvement in the proportion of

correct decisions / SU the highest? Can you explain why this is the case?
Circumstance A
0.6% 0.04 increase for proportion valid outcomes; situation a → (0.503 - 0.500) / 0.500 * 100 =
0.600%
0.4% 0.02 increase for success ratio (SU); situation a → (0.502 - 0.500) / 0.500 * 100 = 0.4%
Therefore, proportion of correct decisions with a validity of .180 - proportion of correct
decisions with a validity of .000) / proportion of correct decisions with a validity of .000 * 100)
● Proportion of correct decisions (validity .180): .503
● Proportion of correct decisions (validity .000): .500
● SU (validity .180) = .502
● SU (validity .000) = .500
Circumstance B
0.1% 0.016 increase for proportion valid outcomes; situation b → (0.915 - 0.914) / 0.914 =
0.100%
47.5% 0.160 increase for success ratio (SU); situation b → (0.059 - 0.040) / 0.040 * 100 =
47.500%
Therefore, proportion of correct decisions with a validity of .180 - proportion of correct
decisions with a validity of .000) / proportion of correct decisions with a validity of .000 * 100)
● Proportion of correct decisions (validity .180): .915
● Proportion of correct decisions (validity .000): .914
● SU (validity .180) = .059
● SU (validity .000) = .040
Circumstance B has a much higher increase in success ratio than circumstances A (47.5% and
0.4% respectively). Circumstances A allows a lot of people who aren’t likely to be successful, in
circumstances B they’re much stricter and the number is lower compared to circumstances A.
The proportion valid outcomes show a small increase in circumstances A than it does in
circumstances B (.1% and .6% respectively), the difference is 0.5%, but this is a small
difference.
Alternative answer to proportion valid outcomes: B was much higher than C in circumstances A
and C was much higher than B in circumstances B, the difference between B and C was greater
in circumstances B. That could explain the difference in increase in proportion valid outcomes.
In Circumstance A, having a test battery improves success ratio (SU) only 2%, while in
Circumstance B, the same test improves SU 16%. This happens due to the changes in base
rate (BR) and selection ratio (SR). That is, when an organization is accepting almost all
applicants and many of them are good (i.e. high SR, high BR – Circumstance A), SU does
not benefit much from test batteries. However, when there is a very strict selection and
only some good candidates (i.e. low SR, low BR – Circumstance B), test batteries could be
very helpful in achieving higher SU. Additionally, the proportion of correct decisions in
Circumstance B has improved only slightly after using the test. This happened since under
random selection so many were already correctly rejected.