{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Interm Living#Leon Taufani0010 - 2 Acquiring Human Resource...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 2 / Acquiring Human Resource Capability the goal should be to reduce error in measurement as much as possible and achieve high reliability. 1f raters are a part of the selection method, such as job interviewers or on—the- job performance evaluators, the extent to which different raters agree also can represent the reliability (or unreliability) of the method. Remember the criticism about the use of graphology (or handwriting analysis) discussed S. companies and even more European in Chapter 1? Handwriting analysis is used by some U. firms as an method of selection. But this method is first of all not even reliable, much less valid. If the same handwriting sample were given to two graphologists, they would not nee; essarily agree on the levels or scores on various employment—related attributes (cg, drive, creativity, intelligence) supposedly measured based on a handwriting sample. Thus, the method has low reliability as an assessment of these attributes. (But even if they did agree, this would not necessarily mean that their assessments are valid.) Reliable methods tend to be long. One of the reasons the SAT, the GRE, the GMAT, and the LSAT seem to take forever to complete is so these tests will have very high levels of re— liability (and they do). But while high reliability is a necessary condition for high validity, high reliability does not ensure that a method is valid. The SAT may be highly reliable, but do scores on the SAT predict anything important, such as how well you actually will perform in college? This question addresses the validity of the method. the Wackenhut Security consultants was to develop a reliable, valid, legally defensible, user-friendly, and inexpensive test that could predict both job performance and long job tenure for security guards. The extent to which the test was able to predict an important criterion such as performance was an indication of the test’s validity. The term validity is close in meaning but not synon which was discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. The objective of ymous with the critical legal term job relatedness, Empirical or criterion-related validity involves . . . . the statistical relationship between scores on some predictor or selection method (e.g., a Criterion-related validity . . . . . test or an mtervrew) and performance on some criterion measure such as on—the-Job effec- tiveness (e.g., sales, supervisory ratings, job turnover, employee theft). At Waekenhut, a study was conducted in which scores on their proposed screening test were correlated with job performance and job tenure. Given certain results, such a study would strongly support a legal argument of job relatedness. The statistical relationship is usually reported as a correlation coefficient. This describes tor and measures of effectiveness (also called cri- the relationship between scores on the predic teria). Correlations from —l to +1 show the direction and strength of the relationship. Higher , correlations indicate stronger validity. Assuming that the study was conducted properly, a . significant correlation between a method’s scores and some important criterion could be offered as a strong argument for the job relatedness of the method if the method was alleged to have resulted in adverse impact against a protected class. Figure 6—2 presents a summary of the correlations of validity for the various (and most popular) selection tools, plus the cost of their development and administration. e degree to which the contents of a selection method (i.e., the Content validity assesses th actual test items) represent (or assess) the requirements of the job. A knowledge—based test red to have content validity for .u for “Certified Public Accountant” could be conside d to evaluate the compatibility of the. accounting job. Subject matter experts are typically use content of a test with the actual requirements of a job (e. g., is the knowledge or skill assess on the test compatible with the knowledge or skill required on the actual job?) Such a stu or evaluation by experts also can be offered as evidence of job relatedness, but the stu should follow the directions provided by the Supreme Court in Albemarle v. Moody ( Chapter 3) and, just to be safe, comply with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selectio Procedures (UGESP). (See www.ceocgov for details on the UGESP.) Validity generalizi tion invokes evidence from past studies on a selection method that is then applied to same or similar jobs and settings. Meta—analysis determines the average validity of a metho’ Validity is close in meaning to “job relatedness” Content validity Validity generalization be used to calculate the financial value of a :- ch can convert correlations into dollar savi What :I’S“Utilit}7?; , ” ' , '- The validity correlation coefficient can also ection method. A method‘s utility depen lection method, using a utility formula, whi or profits that can be credited to a particular sel ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}