Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T05:01:08.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting predictor–criterion construct congruence: Implications for designing personnel selection systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2023

Leaetta M. Hough Open the ORCID record for Leaetta M. Hough [Opens in a new window]  and
Frederick L. Oswald
Leaetta M. Hough*
Affiliation:
The Dunnette Group Ltd., St. Paul, MN, USA
Frederick L. Oswald
Affiliation:
Rice University, Department of Psychological Sciences, Houston, TX, USA
*
Corresponding author: Leaetta Hough; 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.'

Keywords

Personnel selectionSynthetic validityConstruct congruence
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2023 , pp. 307 - 312
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Revised and submitted April 10, 2023, to Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives in Science and Practice as a commentary to focal article entitled “Revisiting the Design of Selection Systems in Light of New Findings Regarding the Validity of Widely Used Predictors” by Sackett, Zhang, Berry, and Lievens.

References

Arthur, W. Jr., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 435–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartram, D. (2005). The great eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1185–1203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosco, F. A., Steel, P., Oswald, F. L., Uggerslev, K. L., & Field, J. G. (2015). Cloud-based meta-analysis to bridge science and practice: Welcome to metaBUS. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 1, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosco, F., Uggerslev, K., & Steel, P. (2017). MetaBUS as a vehicle for facilitating meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In Schmitt, N. & Borman, W. C., (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 35–70). Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., & Knapp, D. J. (Eds.) (2001). Exploring the limits in personnel selection and classification. Erlbaum Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnette, M. D. (1963). A note on THE criterion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 251–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1961). Criterion measurement and personnel judgments. Personnel Psychology, 14, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables – construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Johnson, J. W. (2013). Use and importance of personality variables in work settings. In Weiner, I. B. (Ed.-in-Chief) Schmitt, N. & Highhouse, S. (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 211–243). Wiley.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. (2005). They’re right, well…mostly right: Research evidence and an agenda to rescue personality testing from 1960s insights. Human Performance, 18, 373–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ock, J. (2015). Beyond the Big Five: New directions for personality research and practice in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Paullin, C. (1994). Construct-oriented scale construction: The rational approach. In Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (Eds.), Biodata handbook: Theory, research and use of biographical information in selection and performance Prediction (pp. 109–145). Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2021). Personality determinants of engagement. In Meyer, J. P. & Schneider, B. (Eds.), Research Agenda for Employee Engagement in a Changing World of Work (pp. 67–85). Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897–913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huffcutt, A. I., Culbertson, S. S., & Weyhrauch, W. S. (2014). Moving forward indirectly: Reanalyzing the validity of employment interviews with indirect range restriction methodology: Employment interview validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R., & Simon, L. S. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-Factor Model of Personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 875–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lievens, F., Buyse, T., & Sackett, P. R. (2005). The operational validity of a video-based situational judgment test for medical college admissions: Illustrating the importance of matching predictor and criterion construct domains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 442–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of practice and constructs assessed. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 103–113.Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., Brannick, M. T., & Levine, E. L. (2019). Job and work analysis: Methods, research, and applications for human resource management. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, C. D., Ma, J., & Wee, S. (2022). Cognitive ability and job performance: Meta-analytic evidence for the validity of narrow cognitive abilities. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37, 1119–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, F. L., & Hough, L. M. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-organizational psychology: A productive exchange and some future directions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Borman, W. C., & Hough, L. M. (1988). Test validation for scientific understanding: Two demonstrations of an approach to studying predictor-criterion linkages. Personnel Psychology, 41, 703–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 419–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (in press). Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors 16(3), 283–300. Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Google Scholar
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(2), 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Pulakos, E. D., Nason, E., & Whitney, D. J. (1996). Likability and similarity as potential sources of predictor-related criterion bias in validation research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 272–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Ostroff, C. (1986). Operationalizing the ‘behavioral consistency” approach: Selection test development based on a content-oriented strategy. Personnel Psychology, 39, 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639–655.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto, C. J., Napolitano, C. M., Sewell, M. N., Yoon, H. J., & Roberts, B. W. (2022). An integrative framework for conceptualizing and assessing social, emotional, and behavioral skills: The BESSI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(1), 192–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speer, A. B., Tenbrink, A. P., Wegmeyer, L. J., Sendra, C. C., Shihadeh, M., & Kaur, S. (2022). Meta-analysis of biodata in employment settings: Providing clarity to criterion and construct-related validity estimates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107, 1678–1705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steel, P. D. G., Huffcutt, A. I., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2006). From the work one knows the worker: A systematic review of the challenges, solutions, and steps to creating synthetic validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 16–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., Bosco, F., & Uggerslev, K. (2019). The effects of personality on job satisfaction and life satisfaction: A meta-analytic investigation accounting for bandwidth-fidelity and commensurability. Human Relations, 72, 217–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whetzel, D. L., & Reeder, M. C. (2016). Why some situational judgment tests fail to predict job performance (and others succeed). Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9, 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar