Schmidt, Hunter, McKenzie, and Muldrow (1979) have recently demonstrated how the use of a new test, which differed from a previous test in terms of valid ity and/or per applicant cost, could result in impres sive gains in productivity (utility). This paper focuses on the consequences of changing the applicant pool size (keeping the number of selectees fixed) on the relative productivity gains of the two tests. It is shown that the utility gain may be larger for one test than for the other for part of the range of possible applicant pool sizes and smaller for the rest of that range. Meth ods are described for determining for any two tests (1) whether such a reversal can occur and (2) the range of applicant pool sizes leading to greater utility gains for each test over the other. An implication is that the choice of a test should be contingent on an analysis of the relative productivity gains of the competing proce dures for the available applicant pool sizes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bobko, P., Karren, R., & Parkinson, J.J.Estimation of standard deviations in utility analyses: An empirical test. Journal of Applied Psychology , 1983, 68, 170-176.
2.
Brogden, H.E.On the interpretation of the correlation coefficient as a measure of predictive efficiency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1946, 37, 65-76.
3.
Brogden, H.E.When testing pays off. Personnel Psychology, 1949, 2, 171-183.
4.
Cascio, W.F.Responding to the demand for accountability: A critical analysis of three utility models. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 1980, 25, 32-45.
5.
Cascio, W.F., & Silbey, V., Utility of the assessment center as a selection device. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64, 107-118.
6.
Chen, J.J., & Novick, M.R.On the use of a cumulative distribution as a utility function in educational or employment selection. Journal of Educational Statistics , 1982, 7, 19-35.
7.
Chuang, D.T., Chen, J.J., & Novick, M.R.Theory and practice for the use of cut scores for personnel decisions. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1981, 6, 129-152.
8.
Cronbach, L.J., & Gleser, G.C.Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965.
9.
Cronbach, L.J., Yallow, E., & Schaeffer, G.A mathematical structure for analyzing fairness in selection. Personnel Psychology, 1980, 33, 693-704.
10.
Dunnette, M.D., & Borman, W.C.Personnel selection and classification systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 1979, 30, 489-522.
11.
Gross, A.L., & Su, W.H.Defining a "fair" or "unbiased" selection model: A question of utilities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 345-351.
12.
Hogarth, R.M., & Einhorn, H.J.Optimal strategies for personnel selection when candidates can reject offers . Journal of Business, 1976, 49, 478-495.
13.
Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L.Fitting people to jobs: The impact of personnel selection on national productivity . In E. A. Fleishman (Ed.), Human performance and productivity. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum, in press.
14.
Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L., & Rauschenberger, J.M.Fairness of psychological tests: Implications of four definitions for selection utility and minority hiring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 245-260.
Landy, F.J., Farr, J.L., & Jacobs, R.R.Utility concepts in performance measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1982, 30, 15-40.
19.
Novick, M.R., & Lindley, D.V.The use of more realistic utility functions in educational applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1978, 15, 181-192.
20.
Novick, M.R., & Lindley, D.V.Fixed-state assessment of utility functions. Journal of the American Statistical Association,1979, 74, 306-311.
21.
Novick, M.R., & Petersen, N.S.Towards equalizing educational and employment opportunity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1976, 13, 77-88.
22.
Petersen, N.S.An expected utility model for "optimal" selection. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1976, 4, 333-358.
23.
Petersen, N.S., & Novick, M.R.An evaluation of some models for culture-fair selection. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1976, 13, 3-31.
24.
Roche, W.J.A dollar criterion in fixed-treatment employee selection. In L. J. Cronbach & G. C. Gleser (Eds.), Psychological tests and personnel decisions . Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965.
25.
Savage, I. R. Statistics: Uncertainty and behavior. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
26.
Schlaifer, R.Probability and statistics for business decisions: An introduction to managerial economics under uncertainty. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
27.
Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E., McKenzie, R.C., & Muldrow, T.W.Impact of valid selection procedures on work force productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64, 609-626.
28.
Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E., & Pearlman, K.Assessing the economic impact of personnel programs on work force productivity . Personnel Psychology, 1982, 35, 333-347.
29.
Van Naerssen, R.F.Application of the decision-theoretical approach to the selection of drivers . In L. J. Cronbach & G. C. Gleser, (Eds.), Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965.
