Chapter 5

 Understand why references typically don’t

predict performance
 Learn how to use the trait approach to score
letters of recommendation
 Understand how to choose the right type of
employment test for a particular situation
 Be able to describe the different types of tests
used to select employees
 Be able to create and score a biodata instrument
 Know how to write a well-designed rejection
letter

© 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Workbook Exercise 5.6
 Check for resume fraud
 Find new information about the applicant
 Check for potential discipline problems
 Predict future performance
 Why Check?  Obtaining Missing
 1/3 resumes contain information
inaccurate info  unintentional omission
 over 500,000 people  strategic omission
have bonus degrees  deceptive omission
 Verifying Information  Alternative methods
 truth  bogus application items
 error  social security reports
 embellishment  hire professional
 fabrication reference checkers
Type of Information % Asking % Releasing
Employment dates 97 98
Eligible for re-hire 64 42
Salary history 66 41
Reason for leaving 94 19
Performance 86 18
Employability 16
Work habits 13
People skills 11
 Typesof  Alternative
Information Measures
 personality  psychological tests
 interpersonal style  letters of
 background recommendation
 work habits  biodata
 Problems  resumes
 references seldom  interviews
agree
 people act in
different ways in
different situations
 Criminal Records
 Previous employers
 Motor vehicle records
 Military records
 Credit reports
 Colleges and universities
 Neighbors and friends
 Obtained from local and state agencies
 Check with each jurisdiction
 Only convictions can be used (EEOC Decision
No. 72-1460)
 “Reasonable amount of time” between release
and decision to hire
 In using convictions, employer must consider
 Nature and gravity of offense
 Amount of time that has passed since the conviction
and/or completion of the sentence
 The nature of the job held or being sought
 Purpose
 Predict motivation to steal
 Determine character of applicant
 Fair Credit Reporting Act
 Order through a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA)
 Provide written notice to applicant to you will be
checking credit
 Get applicant’s written authorization to check credit
 If adverse action is to be taken
 Provide applicant with “Pre-adverse Action Disclosure” which
includes copy of credit report
 Inform applicant that they will not be hired due to credit
check and provide name of CRA and notice of applicant
rights to appeal within 60 days
 References are not good predictors of
performance
 Uncorrected validity is 0.18
 References are not reliable (r = 0.22)
 High correlation between two letters written by the
same person for two people than between letters
written by two people for the same person
 They say more about the person writing the letter than
the person being written about
 References are lenient
 Fewer than 1% of applicants are rated below average!
 Applicants often choose their own references
 Applicants often have the right to see their
files
 Former employers fear legal ramifications
 Recalled

Remembered

Processed %

Observed

Behavior

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
 Negligent hiring

 Invasion of privacy

 Negligent reference

 Defamation
 Three types
 libel (written)
 slander (oral)
 self-publication
 Employers have a conditional privilege that
limits their liability
 Truthful
 statements were true
 not true, but reasonable
person would have
believed them to be
true
 opinions are protected
unless reference infers
opinion is based on facts
that don’t exist
 Made for a legitimate
purpose
 Made in good faith
 don’t offer unsolicited
information
 statements cannot be
made for revenge
 avoid personal
comments
 Made with the
permission of the
applicant
 use waivers
 let the former employee
know if the reference
will not be positive
 Reference giver’s  The words used by
ability to articulate the reference giver
 The extent to which  cuter than a baby’s butt
the referee  she has no sexual
remembers the oddities that I am aware
of
applicant
 I have an intimate and
caring relationship with
the applicant
 Jill is a bud that has
already begun to bloom
Recommendation
He is a man of great vision
He is definitely a man to watch
She merits a close look
He’s the kind of employee you can
swear by
She doesn’t mind being disturbed
When he worked for us, he was
given many citations
She gives every appearance of being
a loyal, dedicated employee
Actual Meaning
He hallucinates
I don’t trust him
Don’t let her out of your sight
He likes dirty jokes
She spent 10 years in a mental
hospital
He was arrested several times
But, appearances are deceiving
Recommendation Actual Meaning
If I were you I would give him He can handle a broom
sweeping responsibilities
She commands the respect of But she rarely gets it
everyone with whom she works
I am sure that whatever task he He will foul up any project
undertakes, no matter how small, he
will be fired with enthusiasm
You would be very lucky to get this She is lazy
person to work for you
You will never catch him asleep on He is too crafty to get caught
the job
 Training & Education  Skills
 Experience  Work Samples
 Applications/Resumes  Assessment Centers
 Biodata  References
 Interviews  Personality &
 Knowledge Character
 Personality Tests
 Ability
 Integrity Tests
 Cognitive
 Physical  Medical
 Perceptual  Medical Exams
 Psychological Exams
 Drug Testing
 Whattypes of employment tests have you
taken?
 Education
 Work-Related Training
 Military
Meta-analysis Occupation K N ρ

Aamodt (2002) Police 38 9,007 0.34

Vineberg & Joyner (1982) Military 35 0.25

Ng & Feldman (2009) Many 85 47,125 0.09

Hunter (1980) USES data 425 32,124 0.10

Hunter & Hunter (1984) base
Schmidt & Hunter (1998)

Dunnette (1972) Entry level 15 0.00

petroleum
 Schmidt & Hunter (1998) say no
 Cognitive ability (r = 0.51)
 Cognitive ability and education (r = 0.52)
 GPA is a valid predictor of performance on
the job, training performance, starting
salary, promotions, and grad school
performance
 GPA is most predictive in the first few years
after graduation (Roth et al., 1996)
 GPA will result in high levels (d = 0.78) of
adverse impact (Roth & Bobko, 2000)
 People with high GPAs
 Are intelligent (r = 0.50; Jensen, 1980)
 Are conscientious (r = 0.34; Bevier et al., 1998)
 r ρ
Work-Related Criteria
Job performance (Roth et al., 1996) 0.16 0.36
Training performance (Dye & Reck, 1989) 0.29
Promotions (Cohen, 1984) 0.16
Salary (Roth & Clarke, 1996)
Starting salary 0.13 0.20
Current salary 0.18 0.28
Graduate School Performance (Kuncel et al.,
2001)
Grades 0.28 0.30
Faculty ratings 0.25 0.35
 Isthe validity of education job specific?
 What is the actual incremental validity of
education over cognitive ability?
 Why would education predict performance?
 Knowledge
 Liberal arts skills
 Mental ability
 Motivation
 Tapsjob-related knowledge
 Good validity
 Dye et al. (1993)
 r = 0.22
 ρ = 0.45
 Face valid
 Can have adverse impact
 High validity
 Schmidt & Hunter (1998)
 r = 0.39
 ρ = 0.51
 Predicts training and job performance for all
jobs (Hunter, 1986)
 The more complex the job, the better
cognitive ability tests predict performance
 Strengths
 Highest validity of all selection measures (ρ =
0.51)
 Easy to administer
 Relatively inexpensive
 Most are not time consuming
 Weaknesses
 Likely to cause adverse impact
 Low face validity
 Not well liked by applicants
Workbook Exercise 5.1
 Perceptual Ability (Fleishman & Reilly,1992)
 Vision (near, far, night, peripheral)
 Depth perception
 Glare sensitivity
 Hearing (sensitivity, auditory attention, sound
localization)
 Psychomotor Ability (Fleishman & Reilly,
1992)
 Dexterity (finger, manual)
 Control precision
 Multilimb coordination
 Response control
 Reaction time
 Arm-hand steadiness
 Wrist-finger speed
 Speed-of-limb movement
 Used for jobs with high physical demands
 Three Issues
 Job relatedness
 Passing scores
 When the ability must be present
 Two common ways to measure
 Simulations
 Physical agility tests
 Physical Abilities (Fleishman & Reilly, 1992)
 Dynamic strength (strength requiring repetitions)
 Trunk strength (stooping or bending over)
 Explosive strength (jumping or throwing)
 Static strength
 Dynamic flexibility (speed of bending or
stretching)
 Extent flexibility (degree of bending or
stretching)
 Gross body equilibrium (balance)
 Gross body coordination (coordination)
 Stamina
 Applicants perform tasks that replicate actual
job tasks
 Advantages
 Directly related to the job
 Good criterion validity
 Verbal work samples (r = 0.34; ρ = 0.48)
 Motor work samples (r = 0.31; ρ = 0.43)
 Good face validity
 Less adverse impact than cognitive ability
 Provide realistic job previews
 Disadvantages
 Can be expensive to develop and maintain
A selection technique that uses multiple job-
related assessment exercises and multiple
assessors to observe and record behaviors of
candidates performing job-related tasks
 Based on job  Use multiple
analysis assessors
 Behavioral  Assessor training
classification  Recording behavior
 Assessment  Reports
techniques  Overall judgment
 Use multiple based on
assessment integration of
exercises information
 Simulations
 Leaderless group discussions
 In-basket technique
 Simulations
 Situational exercises
 Work samples
 Roleplays
 Case analyses and business games
 Reliability
 Can have low inter-rater agreement among raters
 Test/retest reliability pretty high (0.70)
 Validity (Arthur et al., 2003)
 Uncorrected 0.28
 Corrected 0.38
 Good face validity
 Weaknesses
 Very expensive
 Time consuming
 Can have low inter-rater agreement
 Behaviors can overlap into several dimensions
 Safety of candidates for some work samples
 Most useful for promotion rather than
selection
 When candidates have some knowledge of
the job
 When you have the money to develop and
maintain assessment centers
 When you have the time and trainers
Workbook Exercise 5.2
 Past behavior predicts future behavior
 Experience is a valid predictor of future
performance (r = 0.22; ρ = 0.27; Quinones et al.,
1995)

 Types of Experience
 Work
 Life
 Evaluated through:
 Application blanks
 Resumes
 Interviews
 Reference checks
 Biodata instruments
 Considerations
 How much experience?
 How well did the person perform?
 How related is it to the current job?
 Credit prior work experience only:
 In the same occupational area as that in which
performance is to be predicted
 In the performance of tasks or functions that have direct
application on the job
 Recency of experience should be used as a
decision rule for awarding credit only when
justified on a case-by-case basis
 Credit for duration of work experience should be
limited to a few years.
 High prediction up to about 3 years of
experience, declining to low prediction for more
than 12 years of experience.
 Sullivan (2000) claims that “experience in
solving ‘past problems’ is rapidly losing its
applicability to current and future
problems.”
 Organizations will increase their applicant
pool if they delete the “ancient history”
requirements (i.e. “Ten years experience
required”).
 Reduce or eliminate the number of years required in your
ads and replace them with “the demonstrated ability to
solve problems with our required level of difficulty.
 Use simulations and actual problems to assess applicants.
 Develop “future-oriented” questions for applicants.
 Train evaluators and compensation professionals to put less
weight on experience of candidates.
 Revise job descriptions to include level of difficulty.
 Identify the amount and type of experience and
competencies that would predict job performance.
 Check to see if there is a correlation between the number of
years of experience an employee has and their success in
your firm.
 Performance matters
 “Haven’t done” doesn’t mean “can’t do”
 Experience has a shelf life
 Listing something on a resume is not
experience
 Where you get your experience matters
 Experience does not guarantee success
 Experience is expensive
 More experience might be bad (old ways and
ideas)
A selection method that considers an
applicant’s life, school, military, community,
and work experience
 Member of high school student government?
Yes No

 Number of jobs in past 5 years?

1 2 3-5 More than 5

 Transportation to work:
Walk Bus Bike Own Car Other
 Choose a job
 Create pool of potential biodata items
 Choose a criterion to measure behavior
 Prescreen items and test on employees
 Retest items on second sample of employees
 Good Biodata Items Bad Biodata Items
Historical Future or Hypothetical
How old were you when you got What position do you think you will
your first paying job? be holding in 10 years?

External Internal
Did you ever get fired from a job? What is your attitude toward friends
who smoke marijuana?

Objective Subjective
How many hours did you study for Would you describe yourself as shy?
your bar exam?

First-hand Second-hand
How punctual are you about coming How would your teachers describe
to work? your punctuality?
 Good Biodata Items Bad Biodata Items
Discrete Summative
At what age did you get your How many hours do you study during
driver’s license? an average week?
Verifiable Non-verifiable
What was your grade point average How may servings of fresh vegetables
in college? do you eat everyday?
Controllable Non-controllable
How many tries did it take you to How many brothers and sisters do you
pass the CPA exam? have?
Equal Access Non-equal Access
Were you ever class president? Were you ever captain of the football
team?
Job Relevant Not job relevant
How many units of cereal did you Are you proficient at crossword
sell during the last calendar year? puzzles?
Noninvasive Invasive
Were you on the tennis team in How many young children do you have
college? at home?
 Variable Long Short Differences Unit Weight
Tenure (%) Tenure (%) in %
Education

High School 40 80 -40 -1

Bachelor’s 59 15 +44 +1

Masters 1 5 -4 0
 Good validity (r = 0.36, ρ= 0.51)
 Can predict for variety of criterion measures
 Easy to administer
 Relatively inexpensive
 Fairly valid
 Can have good face validity
 Low face validity
 Can invade privacy
 Items can be offensive
 Expensive to develop
 Not always practical to develop
 Shrinkage?
 Good validity but not sure why
 Validity seems to drop when items based
rationally (job analysis) rather than
empirically
 Personalityis a collection of traits that
persist across time and situations and
differentiate one person from another
 Types of Personality Inventories
 Measures of normal personality
 Measures of psychopathology
 Basis for Personality Dimensions
 Theory based
 Statistically based
 Empirically based
 Scoring
 Objective
 Projective
 Openness to Experience
 imaginative, curious, cultured
 Conscientiousness
 organized, disciplined, careful
 Extraversion
 outgoing, gregarious, fun-loving
 Agreeableness
 trusting, cooperative, flexible
 Neuroticism (emotional stability)
 anxious, insecure, vulnerable to stress
 Meta-Analysis

Judge et al. (2013) Hurtz & Donovan Barrick & Mount

(2003) (1991)
Dimension Observed True Observed True Observed True

Openness 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.04

Conscientiousness 0.21 0.26 0.15 0.24 0.13 0.22

Extroversion 0.16 0.20 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.13

Agreeableness 0.13 0.17 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.07

Neuroticism - 0.08 - 0.10 - 0.09 - 0.15 - 0.05 - 0.08

 Strengths
 Relatively cheap
 Easy to administer
 Little adverse impact
 Predicts best when based on a job analysis
 Weaknesses
 Scale development
 Validity
 Faking
Workbook Exercise 5.3
 Tap an applicant’s interest in particular types
of work or careers
 Poor predictors of job performance
 Hunter & Hunter (1984)
 r = 0.10
 ρ = 0.13
 Better predictors of job satisfaction
Workbook Exercise 5.4
 Estimate the probability that applicants will
steal money or merchandise
 Used mostly in retail, but gaining acceptance
for other occupations
 Electronic Testing
 Polygraph testing

 Paper and Pencil Testing

 Overt
 Personality based
 Polygraph (lie detector) is a machine that
measures the physiological responses that
accompany the verbal responses an
individual makes to a direct questions asked
by polygraph operator.
 Emotions other than guilt can trigger
responses
 Countermeasures used to avoid detection
 Frequency of false positives
 Frequency of false negatives
 Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988
makes it illegal to:
 Directly or indirectly require an employee to
take a polygraph
 Use, accept, refer to, or inquire about the
results of any polygraph test of any applicant or
employee
 Discharge, discipline, discriminate against, or
deny employment or promotion to (or threaten
such actions) against any prospective or current
employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take
or submit to a polygraph
 Thefollowing are exempt from these
prohibitions

 Private employers providing security services

 Employers who manufacture, distribute, or

dispense controlled substances

 Federal, state, and local government employees.

 Overt integrity tests
 Directly ask for attitudes about theft and
occurrences of theft behavior
 Personality based measures
 Measure traits linked to several theft related
employee behaviors that are detrimental to the
organization
 Rationale is to measure job applicants’ attitudes and
cognitions toward theft that might predispose them to
steal at work, especially when both the need and
opportunity to steal are present.
 Research has shown that the “typical” employee-thief:
 Is more tempted to steal
 Engages in many of the common rationalizations for theft
 Would punish thieves less
 Often thinks about theft related activities
 Attributes more theft to others
 Shows more inter-thief loyalty
 Is more vulnerable to peer pressure to steal than an honest
employee
 Employee theft is just one element in a
larger syndrome of antisocial behavior of
organizational delinquency. Therefore, overt
integrity tests overlook a number of other
counterproductive behaviors that are costly
to the organization
 Drug and alcohol abuse
 Vandalism
 Sabotage
 Assault behaviors
 Insubordination
 Absenteeism
 Excessive grievances
 Bogus workers compensation claims
 Violence
 Validity
 Theft
 0.41 for predicting probability of theft by employees
 Performance
 Van Iddekinge et al. (2012)
 Observed = 0.13
 True = 0.18
 Ones et al. (1993)
 Observed = 0.21
 True = 0.34

 Reliability
 Reports of test-retest reliabilities between 0.90– 0.70
 Advantages
 Potentially good validity
 Inexpensive to use
 Easy to administer
 Little to no racial adverse impact
 Disadvantages
 Males have a higher fail rate than females
 Younger people have a higher fail rate than older
people
 Failure has a negative psychological impact on
applicants.
Workbook Exercise 5.5
 Designed to reduce faking
 Applicants are given a series of statements and asked to select
the reason that justifies each statement
 Aggressive individuals tend to believe
 most people have harmful intentions behind their behavior (hostile
attribution bias)
 it is important to show strength or dominance in social interactions
(potency bias)
 it is important to retaliate when wronged rather than try to maintain a
relationship (retribution bias)
 powerful people will victimize less powerful individuals (victimization
bias)
 evil people deserve to have bad things happen to them (derogation of
target bias)
 social customs restrict free will and should be ignored (social
discounting bias).
 Concept
 A person’s handwriting is a reflection on his or her
personality and character
 Use
 6,000 U.S. organizations
 75% of organizations in France
 8% of organizations in the United Kingdom
 Evaluation
 Few studies
 Validity depends on the writing sample (Simner & Goffin,
2003)
 Autobiographical (r = 0.16, p = 0.22)
 Non-autobiographical (r = 0.09, p = 0.12)
 Use
 In 2001, 80% of U.S. organizations tested for
drugs
 In 2003, 4.6% of applicants tested positive for
drugs
 In 2007, 8.2% of employees admitted to using
drugs in the past month
 Drug users are more likely to
 Miss work
 Use health care benefits
 Be fired
 Have an accident
 Forms of Testing
 Pre-employment testing
 Random selection at predetermined times
 Random selection at random times
 Testing after an accident or disciplinary action
 Responses to the Presence of Drugs
 98% of job offers withdrawn
 Current employees who test positive
 25% are fired after a positive test
 66% are referred to counseling and treatment
 Initial
screening of hair or urine
 Confirmation test
 Typically used only after a positive initial
screening
 Should organizations test for drugs?
Method Validity Method Validity

Structured Interview 0.57 Experience 0.27

Cognitive ability 0.51 Situational judgment 0.26

tests
Biodata 0.51 Conscientiousness 0.24

Job knowledge 0.45 Unstructured interviews 0.20

Work samples 0.48 Integrity tests 0.18

(verbal)
Assessment centers 0.38 Interest inventories 0.10

College grades 0.32 Handwriting analysis 0.02

References 0.29 Projective personality 0.00

Technique White- White- Meta-analysis
Black Hispanic

Cognitive ability 0.99 0.83 Roth et al. (2001)

GPA 0.78 Roth & Bobko (2000)
Work sample 0.73 Roth et al. (2008)
Assessment centers 0.52 0.28 Dean et al. (2008)
Job knowledge 0.48 0.47 Roth et al. (2003)
Situational judgment 0.38 0.24 Whetzel et al. (2008)
Biodata 0.33 Bobko et al. (1999)
Structured interview 0.23 Huffcutt & Roth (1998)
Personality 0.09 Schmitt et al. (1996)
References 0.08 Aamodt & Williams (2005)
Integrity tests 0.07 –0.05 Ones & Viswesvaran (1998)
 Applied
Case Study: New London, CT Police
Department
 In your class, your professor will probably ask you to
take the Employee Personality Inventory in your
workbook. After you do, consider whether or not you
want your job performance to be judged based on
the results of such a test. Would you say that this
test would fairly predict your ability to perform in
certain jobs?
 Does it accurately portray how you would fit into an
organization’s culture or how you would get along
with others? If it doesn’t accurately portray you,
would you then say such a test is unethical?
 Should the tests be better regulated? Are companies
right in using them in their selection process?
 Do you see any other ethical concerns
related to using personality inventories?
 Is there a fairer and more ethical way for
companies to determine if applicants will fit
into the organizational culture and get along
with others?