The value of personnel selection: Reflections on some remarkable claims

Academy of Management Perspectives

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 19-23

  Schmitt, Neal ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35348834820     PISSN: 15589080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AMP.2007.26421235     Document Type: Note

References (31)

1. x in validity studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 253-258.
2. Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2003). Strategic industrial and organizational psychology and the role of utility analysis models. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol.12, pp. 193-221). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
3. Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The substantive nature of job performance variability. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 258-299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Drasgow, F. (2003). Intelligence and the workplace. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 107-130). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
5. Ghiselli, E. E. (1966). The validity of occupational aptitude tests. New York: Wiley.
6. Ghiselli, E. E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 26, 461-477.
7. Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. K. (1989). Eds. Fairness in employment testing. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. Hunter, J. E. (1983). Test validation for 12,000 jobs: An application of job classification and validity generalization analysis to the General Aptitude Test Battery. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, USES Test Research Report No. 45.
9. nd Ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analyses: Methods and findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 594-612.
11. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-672.
12. Le, H., & Schmidt, F. L. (2006). Correcting for indirect restriction of range in meta-analysis: Testing a new meta-analytic procedure. Psychological Methods, 11, 416-438.
13. Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 39-54). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Murphy, K. R. (1986). When your top choice turns you down: Effect of rejected offers on the utility of selection tests. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 133-138.
15. Murphy, K. R., & DeShon, R. P. (2000). Interrater correlations do not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 53, 873-900.
16. Munsterberg, H. (1913). Psychology and industrial efficiency. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.
17. Ployhart, R. E., & Schneider, B. (2005). Multilevel selection and prediction: Theories, methods, and models. In A. Evers, O. Smit-Voskuyl, & N. R. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of personnel selection (pp. 495-516). Chichester/London: Wiley.
18. Rothstein, H. R. (1990). Interrater reliability of job performance ratings: Growth to asymptote level with increasing opportunity to observe. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 322-327.
19. Sackett, P. R., & Ostgaard, D. J. (1994). Job-specific applicant pools and national norms for cognitive ability tests: Implications for range restriction corrections in validation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 680-684.
20. Schmidt, F. L., Gast-Rosenberg, I. F., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). Validity generalization results for computer programmers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 643-661.
21. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529-540.
22. Schmidt, F. L., & 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.
23. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel selection: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
24. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2003). History, development, evolution, and impact of validity generalization and meta-analysis methods, 1975-2001. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 31-66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Schmidt, F. L.,. Hunter, J. E., & Caplan, J. R. (1981). Validity generalization results for two groups in the petroleum industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 261-273.
26. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Pearlman, K., & Shane, G. S. (1979). Further tests of the Schmidt-Hunter Bayesian Validity Generalization Model. Personnel Psychology, 32, 257-281.
27. Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I., & Le, H. (2006). Increasing the accuracy of corrections for range restriction: Implications for selection procedure validities and other research results. Personnel Psychology, 59, 281-305.
28. Schmidt, F. L., Shaffer, J. A., & Oh, I. (unpublished manuscript). Increased accuracy for range restriction corrections: Implications for the role of personality and general mental ability in job and training performance.
29. Terpstra, D. E., & Rozell, E. J. (1993). The relationship of staffing practices to organizational level measures of performance. Personnel Psychology, 48, 607-632.
30. Tippins, N. T., Beatty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W. M., Pearlman, K., Segall, D. O., & Shepherd, W. (2006). Unproctored internet testing in employment settings. Personnel Psychology, 59, 189-225.
31. Viteles, M. S. (1928). Psychology in industry. Psychological Bulletin, 25, 309-340.