This paper evaluates four selection procedures for hiring school principals. These procedures (interviews, assessment center, selected assessment center exercises, and paper and pencil inventories) were compared in terms of validity, processing costs, and dollar gain expected from implementation. Using a pool of 115 individuals who applied for 7 principal positions, the selected assessment center exercises had the greatest utility with an expected dollar-value performance gain in excess of $58,000 over the traditional interview alternative. Use of utility analyses highlights the economic impact staffing procedures have on the educational organization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arvey, R. D. and Campion, J. E. (1982). The employment interview: A summary and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 35, 281-322.
2.
Bobko, P. , Karren, R., and Parkington, J. J. (1983). The estimation of deviations in utility analyses: An empirical test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 170-176.
3.
Bray, D. (1964). The management progress study. American Psychologist, 19, 419-420.
4.
Brogden, H. (1949). When testing pays off. Personnel Psychology, 2, 171-185.
5.
Cascio, W. F. (1982). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations. Boston: Kent Publishing Company.
6.
Cascio, W. and Silbey, V. (1979). Utility of the assessment center as a selection device. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 107-118.
7.
Cronbach, L. and Gleser, G. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
8.
Eaton, N. K. , Wing, H., and Mitchell, K. J. (1985). Alternative methods of estimating the dollar value of performance. Personnel Psychology, 38, 27-40.
9.
Hogan, R. (1986). The Hogan personality inventory: User's manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
10.
Huck, J. R. (1973). Assessment centers: A review of the extenral and internal validities. Personnel Psychology, 26, 191-212.
11.
Hunter, J. E. and Schmidt, F. L. (1982). Fitting people to jobs: The impact of personnel selection on national productivity. In E. A. Fleishman and M. D. Dunnette (Eds.), Human performance and productivity: Vol. 1. Human capability assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Hunter, J. E. and Schmidt, F. L. (1983). Quantifying the effects of psychological interventions on employee job performance and work-force productivity. American Psychologist, 38, 473-478.
13.
Moses, J. L. (1977). Developing an assessment center program for school administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 61, 76-79.
14.
Naylor, J. and Shine, L. (1965). A table for determining the increase in mean criterion score obtained by using a selection device. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 3, 33-42.
15.
Peterson, K. D. and Finn, C. E. (1985). Principals, superintendents, and the administrator's art. The Public Interest, 79, 42-62.
16.
Roche, W. (1961). The Cronbach-Gleser utility function in fixed treatment employee selection. Dissertation Abstracts, 22: 4413.
17.
Portions reproduced in Cronbach and Gleser (Eds.), Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
18.
Schmidt, F. L. and Hoffman, B. (1973). Empirical comparison of three methods of assessing utility of a selection device. Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 13-22.
19.
Schmidt, F. , Hunter, J., McKenzie, R., and Muldrow, T. (1979). Impact of valid selection procedures on work-force productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 609-626.
20.
Schmitt, N. , Noe, R. A., Meritt, R., and Fitzgerald, M. P. (1984). Validity of assessment center ratings for the predation of performance ratings and school climate of school administrators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 207-213.
21.
Taylor, H. and Russell, J. (1939). The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 565-578.
22.
Weekly, J. A. , Frank, B., O'Connor, E. J., and Peters, L. H. (1985). A comparison of three methods of estimating the standard deviation of performance in dollars. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 122-127.
