2013 Cengage Learning References and Testing 2013 Cengage

© 2013 Cengage Learning References and Testing

© 2013 Cengage Learning Why Check References? • • Check for resume fraud Find new information about the applicant Check for potential discipline problems Predict future performance

© 2013 Cengage Learning Checking for Resume Fraud • Why Check? – 1/3 resumes contain inaccurate info – over 500, 000 people have bonus degrees • Verifying Information – – truth error embellishment fabrication • Obtaining Missing information – unintentional omission – strategic omission – deceptive omission • Alternative methods – bogus application items – social security reports – hire professional reference checkers http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=8 u 7 WBl. SIXWI http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=B 09 DU_c. Xk. R 8

© 2013 Cengage Learning Getting Info Can Be Difficult Type of Information Employment dates Eligible for re-hire Salary history Reason for leaving Performance Employability Work habits People skills % Asking 97 64 66 94 86 % Releasing 98 42 41 19 18 16 13 11

© 2013 Cengage Learning Finding New Information About the Applicant • Types of Information – – personality interpersonal style background work habits • Problems – references seldom agree – people act in different ways in different situations • Alternative Measures – psychological tests – letters of recommendation – biodata – resumes – interviews

© 2013 Cengage Learning Checking for Potential Discipline Problems • • Criminal Records Previous employers Motor vehicle records Military records Credit reports Colleges and universities Neighbors and friends

© 2013 Cengage Learning Criminal Records • Obtained from local and state agencies • Check with each jurisdiction • Only convictions can be used (EEOC Decision No. 721460) – “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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Credit Checks • 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 http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=512 Gkwo. ZEFs

© 2013 Cengage Learning Predicting Future Performance • References are not good predictors of performance – Uncorrected validity is. 18 • References are not reliable (r =. 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!

© 2013 Cengage Learning Why the Leniency? • Applicants often choose their own references • Applicants often have the right to see their files • Former employers fear legal ramifications

© 2013 Cengage Learning Extraneous Factors Surrounding the Reference • Reference giver’s ability to articulate • The extent to which the referee remembers the applicant • The words used by the reference giver – cuter than a baby’s butt – she has no sexual oddities that I am aware of – I have an intimate and caring relationship with the applicant – Jill is a bud that has already begun to bloom

© 2013 Cengage Learning The Real Meaning of Recommendations Recommendation Actual Meaning He is a man of great vision He is definitely a man to watch She merits a close look He hallucinates I don’t trust him Don’t let her out of your sight He’s the kind of employee you can He likes dirty jokes swear by She doesn’t mind being disturbed She spent 10 years in a mental hospital When he worked for us, he was given many citations She gives every appearance of being a loyal, dedicated employee He was arrested several times But, appearances are deceiving

© 2013 Cengage Learning The Real Meaning of Recommendations Recommendation Actual Meaning If I were you I would give him sweeping responsibilities He can handle a broom She commands the respect of everyone with whom she works But she rarely gets it I am sure that whatever task he undertakes, no matter how small, he will be fired with enthusiasm He will foul up any project You would be very lucky to get this person to work for you She is lazy You will never catch him asleep on He is too crafty to get caught the job

© 2013 Cengage Learning

© 2013 Cengage Learning Personnel Selection Methods • Skills • Training & Education – Work Samples • Experience – Assessment Centers – Applications/Resumes – References – Biodata • Personality & Character – Interviews – Personality Tests • Knowledge – Integrity Tests • Ability • Medical – Cognitive – Medical Exams – Physical – Psychological Exams – Perceptual – Drug Testing

© 2013 Cengage Learning What types of employment tests have you taken?

© 2013 Cengage Learning Predicting Performance Using Training and Education

© 2013 Cengage Learning Ratings of Training • Education • Work-Related Training • Military

© 2013 Cengage Learning Does Education Predict Performance?

© 2013 Cengage Learning Summary of Meta-Analyses Meta-analysis Aamodt (2002) Vineberg & Joyner (1982) Ng & Feldman (2009) Occupation K N ρ 9, 007 . 34 Police 38 Military 35 . 25 Many 85 47, 125. 09 Hunter (1980) Hunter & Hunter (1984) Schmidt & Hunter (1998) USES data base 425 32, 124. 10 Dunnette (1972) Entry level petroleum 15 . 00

© 2013 Cengage Learning Education and Incremental Validity • Schmidt & Hunter (1998) say no – Cognitive ability (r =. 51) – Cognitive ability and education (r =. 52)

© 2013 Cengage Learning Validity of GPA • 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=. 78) of adverse impact (Roth & Bobko, 2000) • People with high GPAs – Are intelligent (r =. 50; Jensen, 1980) – Are conscientious (r =. 34; Bevier et al. , 1998)

© 2013 Cengage Learning Validity of GPA Meta-Analysis Results r ρ Job performance (Roth et al. , 1996) . 16 . 36 Training performance (Dye & Reck, 1989) . 29 Promotions (Cohen, 1984) . 16 Work-Related Criteria Salary (Roth & Clarke, 1996) Starting salary . 13 . 20 Current salary . 18 . 28 Grades . 28 . 30 Faculty ratings . 25 . 35 Graduate School Performance (Kuncel et al. , 2001)

© 2013 Cengage Learning Lingering Questions • Is the 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Predicting Performance Using Applicant Knowledge • • Taps job-related knowledge Good validity (ρ =. 48) Face valid Can have adverse impact

© 2013 Cengage Learning Predicting Performance Using Applicant Ability

© 2013 Cengage Learning Cognitive Ability Tests • High validity (ρ =. 51) • Predicts training and job performance for all jobs (Hunter, 1986) • The more complex the job, the better cognitive ability tests predict performance

© 2013 Cengage Learning Cognitive Ability Tests Strengths – Highest validity of all selection measures (ρ =. 51) – Easy to administer – Relatively inexpensive – Most are not time consuming

© 2013 Cengage Learning Cognitive Ability Tests Weaknesses – Likely to cause adverse impact – Low face validity – Not well liked by applicants

© 2013 Cengage Learning Perceptual Ability Tests • Perceptual Ability (Fleishman & Reilly (1992) – Vision (near, far, night, peripheral) – Depth perception – Glare sensitivity – Hearing (sensitivity, auditory attention, sound localization)

© 2013 Cengage Learning Psychomotor Ability Tests • 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Physical Ability • 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 http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=9 Bfq. WGWzrf. I

© 2013 Cengage Learning Physical Ability 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Predicting Performance Using Applicant Skill

© 2013 Cengage Learning Work Samples • Applicants perform tasks that replicate actual job tasks • Advantages – Directly related to the job – Good criterion validity • Verbal work samples (ρ =. 48) • Motor work samples (ρ =. 43) – Good face validity – Less adverse impact than cognitive ability – Provide realistic job previews • Disadvantages – Can be expensive to develop and maintain

© 2013 Cengage Learning Assessment Centers What are They? • A selection technique that uses multiple job-related assessment exercises and multiple assessors to observe and record behaviors of candidates performing job-related tasks

© 2013 Cengage Learning Guidelines for Assessment Center Practices Joiner (2000) • Based on job analysis • Behavioral classification • Assessment techniques • Use multiple assessment exercises • Simulations • • • Use multiple assessors Assessor training Recording behavior Reports Overall judgment based on integration of information

© 2013 Cengage Learning Assessment Center Exercises • Leaderless group discussions • In-basket technique • Simulations – Situational exercises – Work samples • Role plays • Case analyses and business games http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=ey. Wxj. NECRBE&feature=related http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=4 e. Ku. Q-Rc. Hq. Y

© 2013 Cengage Learning Evaluation of Assessment Centers Reliability – Can have low inter-rater agreement among raters – Test/retest reliability pretty high (. 70) Validity (Arthur et al. , 2003) – Uncorrected. 28 – Corrected. 38 – Good face validity

© 2013 Cengage Learning Evaluation of Assessment Centers Weaknesses – – Very expensive Time consuming Can have low inter-rater agreement Behaviors can overlap into several dimensions – Safety of candidates for some work samples

© 2013 Cengage Learning When are assessment centers most appropriate? – 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Predicting Performance Using Prior Experience

© 2013 Cengage Learning Experience Ratings • Past behavior predicts future behavior – Experience is a valid predictor of future performance (ρ =. 27; Quinones et al. , 1995) • Types of Experience – Work – Life

© 2013 Cengage Learning Experience • Evaluated through: – – – Application blanks Resumes Interviews Reference checks Biodata instruments

© 2013 Cengage Learning Experience • Considerations – How much experience? – How well did the person perform? – How related is it to the current job?

© 2013 Cengage Learning Experience Predicts Best… • 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.

© 2013 Cengage Learning Experience for Selection: Some Concerns • 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”).

© 2013 Cengage Learning Sullivan (2000) 1) 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. 2) Use simulations and actual problems to assess applicants. 3) Develop “future-oriented” questions for applicants. 4) Train evaluators and compensation professionals to put less weight on experience of candidates. 5) Revise job descriptions to include level of difficulty. 6) Identify the amount and type of experience and competencies that would predict job performance. 7) Check to see if there is a correlation between the number of years of experience an employee has and their success in your firm.

© 2013 Cengage Learning Experience: Some More Concerns • • 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)

© 2013 Cengage Learning Biodata A selection method that considers an applicant’s life, school, military, community, and work experience

© 2013 Cengage Learning Example of Biodata Items 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Development of Biodata Items • • • 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Biodata Standards Gandy & Dye, 1989; Mael, 1991 Good Biodata Items Bad Biodata Items Historical How old were you when you got your first paying job? Future or Hypothetical What position do you think you will be holding in 10 years? External Did you ever get fired from a job? Internal What is your attitude toward friends who smoke marijuana? Objective How many hours did you study for your bar exam? Subjective Would you describe yourself as shy? First-hand Second-hand How punctual are you about coming How would your teachers describe to work? your punctuality?

© 2013 Cengage Learning Good Biodata Items Bad Biodata Items Discrete At what age did you get your driver’s license? Summative How many hours do you study during an average week? Verifiable What was your grade point average in college? Non-verifiable How may servings of fresh vegetables do you eat everyday? Controllable How many tries did it take you to pass the CPA exam? Non-controllable How many brothers and sisters do you have? Equal Access Were you ever class president? Non-equal Access Were you ever captain of the football team? Job Relevant How many units of cereal did you sell during the last calendar year? Not job relevant Are you proficient at crossword puzzles? Noninvasive Were you on the tennis team in college? Invasive How many young children do you have at home?

© 2013 Cengage Learning Biodata Scoring Variable Long Short Differences Unit Weight Tenure (%) in % Education High School 40 80 -40 -1 Bachelor’s 59 15 +44 +1 Masters 1 5 -4 0

© 2013 Cengage Learning Strengths of Biodata – Good validity (r =. 36, ρ=. 51) – Can predict for variety of criterion measures – Easy to administer – Relatively inexpensive – Fairly valid – Can have good face validity

© 2013 Cengage Learning Weaknesses of Biodata – – – Low face validity Can invade privacy Items can be offensive Expensive to develop Not always practical to develop

© 2013 Cengage Learning Validity Issues • Shrinkage? • Good validity but not sure why • Validity seems to drop when items based rationally (job analysis) rather than empirically

© 2013 Cengage Learning

© 2013 Cengage Learning Personality Inventories Personality is a collection of traits that persist across time and situations and differentiate one person from another

© 2013 Cengage Learning Differences in Personality Inventories • Types of Personality Inventories – Measures of normal personality – Measures of psychopathology • Basis for Personality Dimensions – Theory based – Statistically based – Empirically based • Scoring – Objective – Projective

© 2013 Cengage Learning Five-Factor Model (The Big 5) 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Validity of Personality Meta-Analysis Hurtz & Donovan (2003) Barrick & Mount (1991) Tett et al. (1991) Dimension Observed True Openness . 03 . 06 . 03 . 04 . 18 . 24 Conscientiousness . 15 . 24 . 13 . 22 . 16 Extroversion . 06 . 09 . 08 . 13 . 10 . 13 Agreeableness . 07 . 12 . 04 . 07 . 22 . 28 -. 09 -. 15 -. 08 -. 15 -. 19 Neuroticism

© 2013 Cengage Learning Comparison of Meta-Analyses Conscientiousness Hurtz & Donovan (2003) Barrick & Mount (1991) Tett et al. (1991) Only those developed to tap Big 5 Any test that could be assigned to a Big 5 dimension Only studies in which a Big 5 dimension was hypothesized to be related to performance k 42 123 7 n 7, 342 19, 721 450 . 15 . 13 . 12 Types of studies included in metaanalysis Observed validity

© 2013 Cengage Learning Evaluation of Personality Strengths – – Relatively cheap Easy to administer Little adverse impact Predicts best when based on a job analysis Weaknesses – Scale development – Validity – Faking

© 2013 Cengage Learning Interest Inventories • Tap an applicant’s interest in particular types of work or careers • Poor predictors of job performance (ρ =. 13) • Better predictors of job satisfaction

© 2013 Cengage Learning Integrity Tests • Estimate the probability that applicants will steal money or merchandise • Used mostly in retail, but gaining acceptance for other occupations

© 2013 Cengage Learning Types of Integrity Tests Electronic Testing • Polygraph testing Paper and Pencil Testing • Overt • Personality based

© 2013 Cengage Learning Polygraph Testing • 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.

© 2013 Cengage Learning Limitations of the Polygraph • Emotions other than guilt can trigger responses • Countermeasures used to avoid detection • Frequency of false positives • Frequency of false negatives

© 2013 Cengage Learning Legal Guidelines for Polygraph Testing 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Legal Guidelines for Polygraph Testing The following are exempt from these prohibitions – Private employers providing security services – Employers who manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances – Federal, state, and local government employees.

© 2013 Cengage Learning Paper and Pencil Integrity Tests 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Overt Integrity Tests 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Personality-Based Integrity Measures 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Other Behaviors Integrity Tests Can Predict • • • Drug and alcohol abuse Vandalism Sabotage Assault behaviors Insubordination Absenteeism Excessive grievances Bogus workers compensation claims Violence

© 2013 Cengage Learning The Validity and Reliability of Integrity Tests Validity • Theft • . 41 for predicting probability of theft by employees • Performance (Ones et al. 1993) • Observed =. 21 • True =. 34 Reliability • Reports of test-retest reliabilities between. 90 -. 70

© 2013 Cengage Learning Evaluation of Integrity Tests • Advantages – – Good validity (ρ =. 34) 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.

© 2013 Cengage Learning Conditional Reasoning Tests • 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).

© 2013 Cengage Learning Graphology • 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 =. 16, p =. 22) • Non-autobiographical (r =. 09, p =. 12)

© 2013 Cengage Learning

© 2013 Cengage Learning Drug Testing • 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Drug Testing 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

© 2013 Cengage Learning Two Stages of Drug Testing • Initial screening of hair or urine – Cheaper method (about $50) – Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique (EMIT) – Radioimmunoassay (RIA) • Confirmation test – Typically used only after a positive initial screening – Thin layer chromatography/mass spectrometry – More expensive http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=a. VLDk. Xj 4 K 2 A

© 2013 Cengage Learning Should Organizations Test for Drugs?

© 2013 Cengage Learning Typical Corrected Validity Coefficients for Selection Techniques Method Validity Structured Interview . 57 References . 29 Cognitive ability . 51 Experience . 27 Biodata . 51 Situational judgment tests . 26 Job knowledge . 48 Conscientiousness . 24 Work samples (verbal) . 48 Unstructured interviews . 20 Assessment centers . 38 Interest inventories . 10 Integrity tests . 34 Handwriting analysis . 02 College grades . 32 Projective personality tests . 00

© 2013 Cengage Learning Adverse Impact Technique White. Black White. Hispanic Cognitive ability 1. 10 . 72 GPA . 78 Roth & Bobko (2000) Work sample . 73 Roth et al. (2008) Assessment centers . 52 . 28 Dean et al. (2008) Job knowledge . 48 . 47 Roth et al. (2003) Situational judgment . 38 . 24 Whetzel et al. (2008) Biodata . 33 Bobko et al. (1999) Structured interview . 23 Huffcutt & Roth (1998) Recommendations . 22 Aamodt (2002) Personality . 09 Schmitt et al. (1996) References . 08 Aamodt & Williams (2005) Integrity tests . 07 -. 05 Meta-analysis Roth et al. (2001) Ones & Viswesvaran (1998)

© 2013 Cengage Learning Applied Case Study: New London, CT Police Department

© 2013 Cengage Learning Focus on Ethics Using Personality Inventories • 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?

© 2013 Cengage Learning Focus on Ethics Using Personality Inventories • 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?