Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
24 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
to use a test
|
job analysis
identify KSAOs use existing test or develop a test |
|
|
Criterion Related Validity
|
based on statistical relationship
validity coefficent correlation b/w predictor and criterion |
|
|
Incremental Validity
|
when test predictors are used together
|
|
|
Content Validity
|
not based on statistics, but SME judgments instead
SMEs: test measure content intends to? decide after reviewing predictor |
|
|
Face Validity
|
based on applicants judgments
important for application reactions (might sue) |
|
|
cognitive ability tests
|
measures of general intelligence
intelligence as one-dimension construct "g" supposedly represents ability to learn (more complex job, better general intell test) best predictor of job performance (.53 validity coeffiecent, accounts for over 25% of job) |
|
|
determine unfairness
|
single troup validity
differential validity lower average score |
|
|
order of racial groups by score
|
1. asian
2. white 3. hispanic 4. black |
|
|
sternbergs triarchic theory of intelligence
|
academic (verbal, math)
practical (functioning in real world) creative |
|
|
situational judgment tests
|
fairly new type of predictor
best course of action for a scenario validity coefficent .34 |
|
|
Incremental validity
|
SJTs account for variance in job performance beyond cognitive ability, personality, experience
high face validity |
|
|
personality assessment
|
personality may predict contextual performance
predict 'will do' or typical job performance doesnt result in racial differences provides incremental validity above cognitive ability |
|
|
big five
|
Openness to experience
Conscientousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism validity coefficent up to .20-.25 |
|
|
faking
|
can guess what employer would value
|
|
|
integrity tests
|
can be overt, questions about previous behaviors, values
can be covert, like personality inventories predicts counterproductive job behavior (validity coefficent .47) faking! |
|
|
emotional intelligence
|
idenity own emotional states
manage own emotional states states that enable achievement sensitive to others emotions assesed by: test-type measures personality-type measures |
|
|
Structured interview
|
treat every interviewee the same
standardized rating scales one-way questioning compare apples to apples |
|
|
unstrutured interview
|
no attempt to treat everyone the same
haphazard questioning, who is best suited applicants can ask questions compare apples to oranges |
|
|
outcomes for interviews
|
larger validity coefficients for structured (.44) than for unstructured (.33)
structured more fair, less chance for bias; too restrictive though |
|
|
assessment centers
|
multiple raters evaluate applicants on series of work sample exercises
expensive often for managerial jobs |
|
|
Problem Subordinate exercise
|
one on one role play
applicant meets with problem subordinate to resolve issues |
|
|
leaderless group exercise
|
interactions in small group
group has issue to resolve, nobody assigned leader |
|
|
In-basked exercise
|
written exercise
given backgroun info and document write how will handle each document |
|
|
letters of recommendation
|
least valid of predictors (.13)
nearly all letters positive any negative info signal to avoid hiring applicant |
