Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T12:23:20.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A reply to commentaries on “Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2023

Paul R. Sackett ,
Christopher M. Berry ,
Filip Lievens  and
Charlene Zhang
Paul R. Sackett*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Christopher M. Berry
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
Filip Lievens
Affiliation:
Singapore Management University, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore
Charlene Zhang
Affiliation:
Amazon, Alexandria, VA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Paul R. Sackett; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2023 , pp. 371 - 377
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, G. V., & Doverspike, D. (2023). Rearranging deck chairs on the titanic: What are practitioners to do? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 349–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cucina, J. M., & Hayes, T. L. (2023). Rumors of general mental ability’s demise are the next red herring. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSimone, J., & Fezzey, T. (2023). Is it also time to revisit situational specificity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Griebe, A., Bazian, I. M., Demeke, S., Priest, R., Sackett, P. R., & Kuncel, N.R. (2022). A contemporary look at the relationship between general cognitive ability and job performance. Presented at the 37th Annual Conference of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Harms, P. D., Foster, J., & Brummel, B. (2023). Ideal solutions don’t necessarily inform reality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. K. (1989). Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues, and the General Aptitude Test Battery. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S., & Brooks, M. E. (2023). Interpreting the magnitude of predictor effect sizes: It’s time for more sensible benchmarks. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 332–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, L. M, & Oswald, F. L. (2023). Revisiting predictor-criterion construct congruence: Implications for designing personnel selection systems. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffcutt, A., & Murphy, S. (2023). Structured interviews: Moving beyond mean validity…… Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 344–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. E. (1983). Test validation for 12,000 jobs: An application of job classification and validity generalization to the General Aptitude Test Battery (USES Test Research Report No. 45) US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.Google Scholar
Jones, J. W., & Cunningham, M. R. (2023). Going beyond a validity focus to accommodate megatrends in selection system design. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 336–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulikowski, K. (2023). It takes more than meta-analysis to kill cognitive ability. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, S. B. (2023). Meta-analysis in organizational research: A guide to methodological options. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 225–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2023). Interpreting validity evidence: It is time to end the horse race. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, I., Le, H., & Roth, P. L. (in press). Revisiting Sackett et al.’s (2022) rationale behind their recommendation against correcting for range restriction in concurrent validity studies. Journal of Applied Psychology.Google Scholar
Oh, I. S., Mendoza, J. L., & Le, H. (2023). To correct or not to correct for range restriction, that is the question: Looking back and ahead to move forward. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 322–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olenick, J., & Somaraju, A. V. (2023). On the undervaluing of diversity in the validity-diversity tradeoff consideration. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 353–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2023). A response to speculations about concurrent validities in selection: Implications for cognitive ability. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 358–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearlman, K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). Validity generalization results for tests used to predict job proficiency and training success in clerical occupations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 373–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., & Ostgaard, D. J. (1994). Job-specific applicant pools and national norms for cognitive ability tests: Implications for range restriction corrections in validation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 680–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Lievens, F., & Zhang, C. (in press). Correcting for range restriction in meta-analysis: A reply to Oh et al. Journal of Applied Psychology.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Berry, C.M., Zhang, C., & Lievens, F. (2023). Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 283–300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107, 2040–2068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2019). Meta-analysis of the validity of general mental ability for five performance criteria: Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, J. (2023). Hocus-pocus and hydraulics functions: Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 328–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar