Not much more than platitudes? A critical look at the utility of applicant reactions research

Human Resource Management Review

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 119-132

  Ryan, Ann Marie ^a   Huth, Megan ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Applicant reactions; Selection

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249109047     PISSN: 10534822     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (148)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing (1999), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
2. Anderson N., Born M.P.H., and Cunningham-Snell N. Recruitment and selection: Applicant perspectives and outcomes. In: Anderson N., Ones D.S., Senangil H.K., and Viswesvaran C. (Eds). Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology. Personnel Psychology Vol. 1 (2001), Sage, London 200-218
3. Anderson N., and Witvliet C. Fairness reactions to personnel selection methods: An international comparison between the Netherlands, the United States, France, Spain, Portugal, and Singapore. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 16 (2008) 1-13
4. Anonymous. Ensure a positive candidate experience. Strategic HR Review 4 5 (2005) 5
5. Arthur W., and Villado A.J. The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (2008) 435-442
6. Bauer T.N., Maertz C.P., Dolen M.R., and Campion M.A. Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (1998) 892-903
7. Bauer T.N., and Truxillo D.M. Applicant reactions to situational judgment tests: Research and related practical issues. In: Weekley J.A., and Ployhart R.E. (Eds). Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement and application (2006), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 233-252
8. Bauer T.N., Truxillo D.M., Paronto M.E., Weekley J.A., and Campion M.A. Applicant reactions to different selection technology: Face-to-face, interactive voice response, and computer-assisted telephone screening interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12 (2004) 135-148
9. Bauer T.N., Truxillo D.M., Sanchez R.J., Craig J., Ferrara P., and Campion M.A. Applicant reactions to selection: Development of the selection procedural justice scale (SPJS). Personnel Psychology 54 (2001) 387-419
10. Bauer T.N., Truxillo D.M., Tucker J.S., Watehrs V., Bertolino M., Erdogan B., et al. Selection in the information age: The impact of privacy concerns and computer experience on applicant reactions. Journal of Management 32 (2006) 601-621
11. Bazerman M.H., Schroth H.A., Shah P.P., Diekmann K.A., and Tenbrunsel A.E. The inconsistent role of comparison others and procedural justice in reactions to hypothetical job offers: Implications for job acceptance decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60 (1994) 326-352
12. Bell B.S., Ryan A.M., and Wiechmann D. Justice expectations and applicant perceptions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12 (2004) 24-38
13. Bendig A.W. Reliability and the number of rating scale categories. Journal of Applied Psychology 38 (1954) 38-40
14. Bendig A.W. Reliability of short rating scales and the heterogeneity of rated stimuli. Journal of Applied Psychology 38 (1954) 167-170
15. Bertolino M., and Steiner D.D. Fairness reactions to selection methods: An Italian study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15 (2007) 197-205
16. Bies R.J., and Moag J.F. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: Lewicki R.J., Sheppard B.H., and Bazerman M.H. (Eds). Research on negotiations in organizations Vol. 1 (1986), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT 43-55
17. Bond C.F., and Titus L.J. Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin 94 2 (1983) 265-292
18. Bowen C.C., Martin B.A., and Hunt S.T. A comparison of ipsative and normative approaches for ability to control faking in personality questionnaires. The international Journal of Organizational Analysis 10 (2002) 240-259
19. Braddy P.W., Thompson L.F., Wuensch K.L., and Grossnickle W.F. Internet recruiting: The effects of web page design features. Social Science Computer Review 21 (2003) 374-385
20. Bridgeman B. A comparison of quantitative questions in open-ended and multiple-choice format. Journal of Educational Measurement 29 (1992) 253-271
21. Brutus, S. (1995). Perceived Job Relatedness: Proposal of a New Theoretical Model. Dissertation, Bowling Green State University.
22. Burns G.N., Siers B.P., and Christiansen N.D. Effects of providing pre-test information and preparation materials on applicant reactions to selection procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 16 (2008) 73-77
23. Carless S.A. Applicant reactions to multiple selection procedures for the police force. Applied Psychology: An International Review 55 (2006) 145-167
24. Chan D., and Schmitt N. Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1997) 142-159
25. Chan D., Schmitt N., DeShon R.P., Clause C., and Delbridge K. Reactions to cognitive ability tests: The relationships between race, test performance, face validity perceptions, and test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1997) 300-310
26. Chan D., Schmitt N., Jennings D., Clause C., and Delbridge K. Applicant perceptions of test fairness: Integrating justice and self-serving bias perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 6 (1998) 232-239
27. Chan D., Schmitt N., Sacco J.M., and DeShon R.P. Understanding pretest and posttest reactions to cognitive ability and personality tests. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (1998) 471-485
28. Chapman D.S., Uggerslev K.L., and Webster J. Applicant reactions to face-to-face and technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (2003) 944-953
29. Chapman D., and Webster J. Toward an integrated model of applicant reactions and job choice. International Journal of Human Resource Management 17 (2006) 1032-1057
30. Chiu C., Hong Y., and Dweck C.S. Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 1 (1997) 19-30
31. Cober R.T., Brown D.J., and Levy P.E. Form, content, and function: An evaluative methodology for corporate employment web sites. Human Resource Management 43 (2004) 201-218
32. Cober R.T., Brown D.J., Levy P.E., Cober A.B., Eggers S.J., and Keeping L.M. Characteristics of respondents who respond differently to positively and negatively worded items on rating scales. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28 6 (2003) 587-607
33. Converse P.D., Oswald F.L., Imus A., Hedricks C., Roy R., and Butera H. Forcing choices in personality measurement: Benefits and limitations. In: Griffith R.L., and Peterson M.H. (Eds). A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (2006), Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT 263-282
34. Conway J.M., and Peneno G.M. Comparing structured interview question types: Construct validity and applicant reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology 13 4 (1999) 485-506
35. Derous E., Born M., and DeWitte K. How applicants want and expect to be treated: Applicants' selection treatment beliefs and the development of the social process questionnaire on selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12 (2004) 99-119
36. Dineen B.R., Ling J., Ash S.R., and DelVecchio D. Aesthetic properties and message customization: Navigating the dark side of web recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (2007) 356-372
37. Dweck C.S., Chiu C., and Hong Y. Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry 6 4 (1995) 267-285
38. Dwight S.A., and Alliger G.M. Reaction to overt integrity test items. Educational and Psychological Measurement 57 6 (1997) 937-948
39. Dwight S.A., and Donovan J.J. Do warnings not to fake reduce faking?. Human Performance 16 (2003) 1-23
40. Educational Testing Service. Educational testing service fairness review guidelines (2003), Author, Princeton, NJ
41. Elkins T.J., and Phillips J.S. Job context, selection decision outcome, and perceived fairness of selection tests: Biodata as an illustrative case. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 3 (2000) 479-484
42. Feinberg J.M., and Aiello J.R. Social facilitation: A test of competing theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35 5 (2006) 1087-1109
43. Ford, D. K., Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. (in press). Rejected but still there: shifting the focus in applicant reactions to the promotional context. International Journal of Selection and Assessment.
44. Foster Thompson L., Surface E.A., Martin D.L., and Sanders M.G. From paper to pixels: Moving personnel surveys to the Web. Personnel Psychology 56 1 (2003) 197-227
45. French-Lazovik G., and Gibson C.L. Effects of verbally labeled anchor points on the distributional parameters of rating measures. Applied Psychological Measurement 8 (1984) 49-57
46. Gilliland S.W. The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review 18 (1993) 694-734
47. Gilliland S.W. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (1994) 691-701
48. Gilliland S.W. Fairness from the applicant's perspective: Reactions to employee selection procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 3 (1995) 11-19
49. Gilliland S.W., Groth M., Baker R.C., Dew A.F., Polly L.M., and Langdon J.C. Improving applicants' reactions to rejection letters: An application of fairness theory. Personnel Psychology 54 3 (2001) 669-703
50. Gilliland S.W., and Hale J.M.S. How can justice be used to improve employee selection practices?. In: Greenberg J., and Colquitt J.A. (Eds). Handbook of organizational justice (2005), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 411-438
51. Harland L.K., Rauzi T., and Biasotto M.M. Perceived fairness of personality tests and the impact of explanations for their use. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 8 (1995) 183-192
52. Harris M.M. Internet testing: the examinee perspective. In: Bartram D., and Hambleton R.K. (Eds). Computer-based testing and the internet: Issues and advances (2006), Wiley, Chichester, England 115-134
53. Harris M.M., and Fink L.S. A field study of applicant reactions to employment opportunities: Does the recruiter make a difference?. Personnel Psychology 40 (1987) 765-784
54. Harris M.M., Van Hoye C., and Lievens F. Privacy and attitudes towards internet-based selection systems: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 11 (2003) 230-236
55. Hausknecht J.P., Day D.V., and Thomas S.C. Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 57 (2004) 639-683
56. Hausknecht, J.P., Halpert, J.A., Harder, B.K., Kuljanin, G., & Moriarty, M. (2006, April). Issues in repeated testing: Test attitudes and applicant reactions. Presented at the 20th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
57. y method, information frame, and focal intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1997) 104-112
58. Heggestad E.D., Morrison M., Reeve C.L., and McCloy R.A. Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection: Evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 3 (2006) 9-24
59. Holtz B.C., Ployhart R.E., and Dominguez A. Testing the rules of justice: The effects of frame-of-reference and pre-test validity information on personality test responses and test perceptions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 13 (2005) 75-86
60. Horvath M., Ryan A.M., and Stierwalt S. The influence of explanations for selection test use, outcome favorability and self-efficacy on test-taker perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 83 (2000) 310-330
61. Imus A., and Ryan A.M. Relevance and rigor in research on the applicant's perspective: In pursuit of pragmatic science. In: Anderson N., Voskuijl O., and Evers A. (Eds). The Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (2005), Blackwell Publishers, London 291-305
62. Johnson C.E., Wood R., and Blinkhorn S.F. Spuriouser and spuriouser: The use of ipsative personality tests. Journal of Occupational Psychology 61 (1988) 153-162
63. Kammrath L.K., and Dweck C.S. Voicing conflict: Preferred conflict strategies among incremental and entity theorists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32 11 (2006) 1497-1508
64. Kanning L.P., Grewe K., Hollenberg S., and Hadouch M. From the subjects' point of view: reactions to different types of situational judgment items. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 32 (2006) 168-176
65. Kline T.J.B. Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation (2005), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
66. Klockers A.J., and Yamagishi M. The influence of labels and positions in rating scales. Journal of Educational Measurement 25 (1988) 85-96
67. Kohn L.S., and Dipboye R.L. The effects of interview structure on recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 9 (1998) 821-843
68. Komorita S.S. Attitude content, intensity, and the neutral point on a Likert scale. Journal of Social psychology 61 (1963) 327-334
69. Kotlyar I., and Karakowski L. If recruitment means building trust, where does technology fit in?. Canadian HR Reporter 15 17 (2002) 21
70. Kuncel N.R., and Klieger D.M. Application patterns when applicants know the odds: Implications for selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 2 (2007) 586-593
71. Lance C. Why assessment centers do not work the way they are supposed to. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on science and practice 1 (2008) 84-97
72. Lance C.E., Foster M.R., Nemeth Y.M., Gentry W.A., and Drollinger S. Extending the nomological network of assessment center construct validity: Prediction of cross situationally consistent and specific aspects of assessment center performance. Human Performance 20 (2007) 345-362
73. Leftley A. E-recruitment delivers return on investment for DML. Strategic HRM Review 6 (2007) 8-9
74. Liden R.C., and Parsons C.K. A field study of job applicant interview perceptions, alternative opportunities, and demographic characteristics. Personnel Psychology 39 (1986) 109-122
75. Lievens F., Chasteen C.S., Day E.A., and Christiansen N.D. Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (2006) 247-258
76. Lievens F., and Conway J.M. Dimension and exercise variance in assessment center scores: A large-scale evaluation of multitrait-multimethod studies. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001) 1202-1222
77. Lievens F., DeCorte W., and Brysee K. Applicant perceptions of selection procedures: The role of selection information, belief in tests, and comparative anxiety. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 11 (2003) 67-77
78. Linn R.L., Baker E.L., and Dunbar S.B. Complex, performance-based assessments: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher 13 (1991) 15-31
79. Lissitz R.W., and Green S.B. Effect on the number of scale points on reliability: A Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (1975) 10-13
80. Madigan J., and Macan T.H. Improving applicant reactions by altering test administration. Applied Human Resource Management Research 10 (2005) 73-88
81. Marcus B. Attitudes towards personnel selection methods: A partial replication and extension in a German sample. Applied Psychology: An International Review 52 (2003) 515-532
82. Martin C.L., and Nagao D.G. Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology 74 1 (1989) 72-80
83. Mattell M.S., and Jacoby J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 31 (1971) 657-674
84. Mattell M.S., and Jacoby J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. Journal of Applied Psychology 56 (1971) 506-509
85. Maynard, D., & Ryan, A.M. (1995). Reactions to compensatory versus non-compensatory selection systems. Presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
86. McFarland L.A. Warning against faking on a personality test: Effects on applicant reactions and personality test scores. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 11 (2003) 265-276
87. McFarland L.A., Ryan A.M., and Ellis A. Item placement on a personality measure: Effects on faking behavior and test measurement properties. Journal of Personality Assessment 78 (2002) 348-369
88. Moscoso S., and Salgado J.R. Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in Spain and Portugal. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12 (2004) 187-196
89. Murphy K.R., and Davidshofer C.O. Psychological testing: Principles and applications (1994), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
90. Murphy K.R., and Tam A.P. The decisions job applicants must make: Insights from a Bayesian perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12 (2004) 66-74
91. Nevo B. Examinee feedback questionnaire: Reliability and validity measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement 55 (1995) 499-504
92. Nikolaou I., and Judge T.A. Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in Greece: The role of core self-evaluations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15 (2007) 206-219
93. Phillips J.M., and Gully S.M. Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in Singapore and the United States. International Journal of Human Resource Management 13 (2002) 1186-1205
94. Ployhart R.E., Ehrhart K.H., and Hayes S.C. Using attributions to understand the effects of explanations on applicant reactions: Are reactions consistent with the covariation principle?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35 2 (2005) 259-296
95. Ployhart R.E., Ryan A.M., and Bennett M. Explanations for selection decisions: Applicants' reactions to informational and sensitivity features of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (1999) 87-106
96. Ployhart R.E., Weekley J.A., Holtz B.C., and Kemp C. Web-based and paper-and-pencil testing of applicants in a proctored setting: Are personality, biodata and situational judgment tests comparable?. Personnel Psychology 56 (2003) 733-752
97. Potosky D. A conceptual framework for the role of the administration medium in the personnel assessment process. Academy of Management Review 33 (2008) 629-640
98. Potosky D., and Bobko P. Selection testing via the Internet: Practical considerations and exploratory empirical findings. Personnel Psychology 57 (2004) 1003-1034
99. Robertson I.T., Iles P., Gratton L., and Sharpley D. The impact of personnel selection and assessment methods on candidates. Human Relations 44 (1991) 963-982
100. Rolland F., and Steiner D.D. Test-taker reactions to the selection process: Effects of outcome favorability, explanations and voice on fairness perceptions. Journal of applied Social Psychology 37 (2007) 2800-2826
101. Rosse J.G., Miller J.L., and Stecher M.D. A field study of job applicants' reactions to personality and cognitive ability testing. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (1994) 987-992
102. Ryan, A. M., Boyce, A. S., Ghumman, S., Jundt, D., Schmidt, G., & Gibby, R. (in press). Going global: Cultural values and perceptions of selection procedures. Applied Psychology: An International Review.
103. Ryan A.M., and Greguras G.J. Life is not multiple choice: Reactions to the alternatives. In: Hakel M.D. (Ed). Beyond multiple choice: Evaluating alternatives to traditional testing for selection (1998), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 183-202
104. Ryan A.M., Greguras G.J., and Ployhart R.E. Perceived job relatedness of physical ability testing for firefighters: Exploring variations in reactions. Human Performance 9 (1996) 219-240
105. Ryan A.M., and Ployhart R.E. Applicants' perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management 26 (2000) 565-606
106. Ryan A.M., and Ployhart R.E. Customer service behavior. In: Borman W.C., Ilgen D.R., and Klimoski R.J. (Eds). Handbook of psychology, Volume XII: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2002), John Wiley, New York 377-397
107. Ryan, A. M., & Tippins, N. (in press). Designing and implementing global staffing systems. London: Blackwell Publishers.
108. Rynes S.L. Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: a call for new research directions. In: Dunnette M.D. (Ed). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (1991), Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA 399-444
109. Rynes S.L., Bretz R.D., and Gerhart B. The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology 44 (1991) 487-521
110. Rynes S.L., and Connerley M.R. Applicant reactions to alternative selection procedures. Journal of Business and Psychology 7 3 (1993) 261-277
111. Rynes S.L., Heneman H.G., and Schwab D.P. Individual reactions to organizational recruiting: A review. Personnel Psychology 33 (1980) 529-542
112. Sackett P.R., and Lievens F. Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology 59 (2008) 419-450
113. Sackett P.R., and Wanek J.E. New developments in the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology 49 (1996) 787-829
114. Saks A.M., Leck J.D., and Saunders D.M. Effects of application blanks and employment equity on applicant reactions and job pursuit intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16 (1995) 415-430
115. Saks A.M., and McCarthy J.M. Effects of discriminatory interview questions and gender on applicant reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology 21 (2006) 175-191
116. Salgado J.F., and Moscoso S. Internet-based personality testing: Equivalence of measures and assessee's perceptions and reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 11 (2003) 194-205
117. Schinkel S., Van Dierendonck D., and Anderson N. The impact of selection encounters on applicants: An experimental study into feedback effects after a negative selection decision. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12 2 (2004) 197-205
118. Schmitt N., and Chan D. An agenda for future research on applicant reactions to selection procedures: A construct-oriented approach. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 12 (2004) 9-23
119. Schuler H. Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical results. In: Schuler H., Farr J.L., and Smith M. (Eds). Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (1993), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 11-26
120. Seitz, R., Truxillo, D.M., & Bauer, T.N. (2001, April). Test familiarization: Effects on reactions to written and video tests. Presented at 16th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
121. Shaw J.C., Wild E., Greenberg J., and Colquitt J.A. To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 3 (2003) 444-458
122. Simsek Z., and Viega J.F. A primer on internet organizational surveys. Organizational Research Methods 4 3 (2001) 218-235
123. Smither J.W., Reilly R.R., Millsap R.E., Pearlman K., and Stoffey R.W. Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology 46 (1993) 49-76
124. Steele C.M., and Aronson J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (1995) 797-811
125. Steiner D.D., and Gilliland S.W. Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in France and the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (1996) 134-141
126. Steiner D.D., and Gilliland S.W. Procedural justice in personnel selection: International and cross-cultural perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9 (2001) 124-137
127. Taylor M.S., and Bergmann T.J. Organizational recruitment activities and applicants' reactions at different stages of the recruitment process. Personnel Psychology 40 (1987) 261-285
128. Thibodeaux, H. F., Avis, J. M., & Kudisch, J. D. (2003, April). The influence of the Big Five on test taker reactions. Presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
129. Thorsteinson T.J., and Ryan A.M. The effect of selection ratio on perceptions of the fairness of a selection test battery. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 5 (1997) 159-168
130. Tippins N.T., Beaty J., Drasgow F., Gibson W.M., Pearlman K., Segall D.O., et al. Unproctored internet testing in employment setting. Personnel Psychology 59 (2006) 189-225
131. Tonidandel S., Quiñones M.A., and Adams A.A. Computer-adaptive testing: The impact of test characteristics on perceived performance and test takers' reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2002) 320-332
132. Tran T., and Blackman M.C. The dynamics and validity of the group selection interview. Journal of Social Psychology 146 2 (2006) 183-201
133. Truxillo D.M., and Bauer T.N. Applicant reactions to test score banding in entry-level and promotional contexts. Journal of applied Psychology 84 (1999) 332-339
134. Truxillo D.M., Bauer T.N., Campion M.A., and Paronto M.E. Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2002) 1020-1031
135. Truxillo D.M., Bauer T.N., Campion M.A., and Paronto M.E. A field study of the role of Big Five Personality in applicant perceptions of selection fairness, self, and the hiring organization. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 14 (2006) 269-277
136. Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Kuang, D., & Ostberg, D. E. (2002, April). Perceived fairness of situational versus experience-based structured interviews. Presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Canada.
137. Truxillo D.M., Bauer T.N., and Sanchez R.J. Multiple dimensions of procedural justice: Longitudinal effects on selection system fairness and test-taking self-efficacy. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9 (2001) 336-349
138. Truxillo D.M., and Hunthausen J.M. Reactions of African-American and White applicants to written and video-based police selection tests. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 14 (1999) 101-112
139. Truxillo D.M., Steiner D.D., and Gilliland S.W. The importance of organizational justice in personnel selection: Defining when selection fairness really matters. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 13 (2004) 39-53
140. Vasilopoulos N.L., and Cucina J.M. Faking on noncognitive measures: The interaction of cognitive ability and test characteristics. In: Griffith R.L., and Peterson M.H. (Eds). A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (2006), Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT 305-332
141. Waung M., and Brice T.S. The effect of acceptance/rejection status, status notification, and organizational obligation fulfillment on applicant intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (2007) 2048-2071
142. Whitney D.J., Dias J., Mineghino M.E., and Powers K. Perceptions of overt personality-based integrity tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 7 1 (1999) 35-45
143. Whyte G., and Latham G.P. The futility of utility analysis revisited: When even an expert fails. Personnel Psychology 50 3 (1997) 601-610
144. Wiechmann D., and Ryan A.M. Reactions to computerized testing in selection contexts. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 11 2-3 (2003) 215-229
145. Wyatt R.C., and Meyers L.S. Psychometric properties of four 5-point Likert-type response scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 47 (1987) 27-35
146. Zeidner M. Essay versus multiple choice type classroom exams: The student's perspective. Journal of Educational Research 80 (1987) 352-358
147. Zusman R.R., and Landis R.S. Applicant preferences for web-based versus traditional job postings. Computers in Human Behavior 18 (2002) 285-296
148. Zwick R. Fair game? The use of standardized admissions tests in higher education (2002), Routledge, New York