The utility of a multiple-domain assessment approach to management selection was examined in detail. On the basis of concurrent validity results obtained in a recent large-scale validity study by the present authors, the issue of utility, or concrete gains, that the participating organization would realize was investigated from a number of different perspectives and through use of several different utility models. In addition, some new procedures were examined for estimating the variability of job performance, a quantity needed in the linear regression-based utility models. Empirical utility results are presented, and some methodological considerations connected with utility analysis are noted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brogden, H. E. (1946). On the interpretation of the correlation coefficient as a measure of predictive efficiency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 65-76.
2.
Burke, M. J. and Frederick, J. T. (1984). Two modified procedures for estimating standard deviations in utility analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 482-489.
3.
Cascio, W. F. (1987). Applied psychology in personnel management (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
Cascio, W. F. and Silbey, V. (1979). Utility of the assessment center as a selection device. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 107-118.
5.
Cronbach, L. J. and Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
6.
Eaton, N. K. , Wing, H., and Mitchell, K. J. (1985). Alternative methods of estimating the dollar value of performance. Personnel Psychology, 38, 27-40.
7.
Hakstian, A. R. , Woolsey, L. K., and Schroeder, M. L. (1987). Validity of a large-scale assessment battery in an industrial setting. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 47, 165-178.
8.
Hakstian, A. R. , Woolley, R. M., Woolsey, L. K., and Kryger, B. R. (1991). Management selection by multiple-domain assessment: I. Concurrent validity. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT.
9.
Milkovich, G. T. , Glueck, W. F., Barth, R. T., and McShane, S. L. (1988). Canadian personnellhuman resource management: A diagnostic approach. Plano, TX: Business Publications.
10.
Naylor, J. C. and Shine, L. C. (1965). A table for determining the increase in mean criterion score obtained by using a selection device. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 3, 33-42.
11.
Schmidt, F. L. and Hunter, J. E. (1983). Individual differences in productivity: An empirical test of estimates derived from studies of selection procedure utility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 407-414.
12.
Schmidt, F. L. , Hunter, J. E., McKenzie, R. C., and Muldrow, T. W. (1979). Impact of valid selection procedures on workforce productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 609-626.
13.
Taylor, H. C. and Russell, J. T. (1939). The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection: Discussion and tables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 565-578.
