Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Utilizing research in the practice of personnel selection: General mental ability, personality, and job performance
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
2014 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Identifying and hiring the highest performers is essential for organizations to remain competitive. Research has provided effective guidelines for this but important aspects of these evidence-based processes have yet to gain acceptance among practitioners. The general aim of this thesis was to help narrowing the gap between research and practice concerning personnel selection decisions. The first study compared the validity estimates of general mental ability (GMA) and the five factor model of personality traits as predictors of job performance, finding that, when the recently developed indirect correction for range restriction was applied, GMA was an even stronger predictor of job performance than previously found, while the predictive validity of the personality traits remained at similar levels. The approach used for data collection and combination is crucial to forming an overall assessment of applicants for selection decisions and has a great impact on the validity of the decision. The second study compared the financial outcomes of applying a mechanical or clinical approach to combining predictor scores. The results showed that the mechanical approach can result in a substantial increase in overall utility. The third study examined the potential influences that practitioners’ cognitive decision-making style, accountability for the assessment process, and responsibility for the selection decision had on their hiring approach preferences. The results showed that practitioners scoring high on intuitive decision-making style preferred a clinical hiring approach, while the contextual aspects did not impact practitioners’ preferences. While more research may be needed on practitioner preferences for a particular approach, the overall results of this thesis support and strengthen the predictive validity of GMA and personality traits, and indicate that the mechanical approach to data combination provides increased utility for organizations. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Department of Psychology, Stockholm University , 2014. , 77 p.
Keyword [en]
Personnel selection, job performance, correction for range restriction, general mental ability, personality, clinical and mechanical data collection, clinical and mechanical data combination, utility, preference for hiring approach
National Category
Psychology
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-101976ISBN: 978-91-7447-883-9 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-101976DiVA: diva2:706092
Public defence
2014-04-25, David Magnussonsalen (U31), Frescati Hagväg 8, Stockholm, 10:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 2: Manuscript. Paper 3: Manuscript.

Available from: 2014-04-03 Created: 2014-03-18 Last updated: 2014-04-22Bibliographically approved
List of papers
1. Using individual differences to predict job performance: Correcting for direct and indirect restriction of range
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Using individual differences to predict job performance: Correcting for direct and indirect restriction of range
2012 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, ISSN 0036-5564, E-ISSN 1467-9450, Vol. 53, no 4, 368-373 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Sjoberg, S., Sjoberg, A., Naswall, K. & Sverke, M. (2012). Using individual differences to predict job performance: Correcting for direct and indirect restriction of range. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53, 368373. The present study investigates the relationship between individual differences, indicated by personality (FFM) and general mental ability (GMA), and job performance applying two different methods of correction for range restriction. The results, derived by analyzing meta-analytic correlations, show that the more accurate method of correcting for indirect range restriction increased the operational validity of individual differences in predicting job performance and that this increase primarily was due to general mental ability being a stronger predictor than any of the personality traits. The estimates for single traits can be applied in practice to maximize prediction of job performance. Further, differences in the relative importance of general mental ability in relation to overall personality assessment methods was substantive and the estimates provided enables practitioners to perform a correct utility analysis of their overall selection procedure.

Keyword
Personality, general mental ability, job performance, range restriction correction, personnel selection
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-80608 (URN)10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00956.x (DOI)000306314000010 ()
Note

AuthorCount:4;

Available from: 2012-09-26 Created: 2012-09-25 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved
2. The utility gain of leaving professional judgment outside of prediction: Clinical versus mechanical interpretation of GMA and personality
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The utility gain of leaving professional judgment outside of prediction: Clinical versus mechanical interpretation of GMA and personality
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Purpose – The purpose of this study was to analyze and illustrate the margin utility of using clinical versus mechanical data combination for personnel selection purposes using measures of personality and general mental ability as predictors of job performance.

Design/methodology/approach – By utilizing meta-analytic estimates for personality and general mental ability to predict job performance, and for clinical versus mechanical data combination predicting work criteria, utility analysis was applied to estimate the margin utility between data combination approach for different selection scenarios.

Findings – The findings indicate that in a selection context, the difference in financial outcome is likely to be extensive between the two data combination methods. The gain in utility of combining data mechanically corresponds to an amount likely to represent the difference between failure and success for many organizations.

Implications – This comparison provide professionals with the opportunity to gain insight into the difference in financial outcome of applying data combination method and by that increase the likelihood of acceptance and use of the mechanical approach. It also provides the reader with an example of how to utilize estimates provided by research, how to apply them for data combination purposes, and how to estimate the margin utility in their own selection practice.

Originality/value – This is the first study to illustrate the superiority of mechanical data combination compared to clinical for job performance and selection purposes in financial terms.

Keyword
Utility, mechanical data combination, clinical data combination, personality, general mental ability, personnel selection, prediction, job performance
National Category
Applied Psychology
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-101973 (URN)
Available from: 2014-03-18 Created: 2014-03-18 Last updated: 2014-03-20Bibliographically approved
3. Preference for hiring approach: Cognitive style or context dependent?
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Preference for hiring approach: Cognitive style or context dependent?
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Despite consistent research evidence for the superiority of a mechanical hiring approach using standardized methods for collecting and combining data about job applicants, a clinical approach, relying on professional judgment, is predominating in selection practice. Identifying crucial factors driving practitioners’ preferences is a pre-requisite for guiding actions aimed at increasing the level of acceptancy and use of a mechanical approach. The results in this study showed that practitioners with an intuitive decision-making style prefer a clinical approach, while contextual aspects, accountability for the selection process and responsibility for the selection decision, did not impact practitioners’ preferences. Thus, individuals who rely on feelings and hunches in their everyday decisions also prefer intuitive judgments professionally, regardless pressure of accountability and responsibility. 

Keyword
Decision-making style, procedural accountability, decision responsibility, preferred hiring approach, personnel selection.
National Category
Applied Psychology
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-101974 (URN)
Available from: 2014-03-18 Created: 2014-03-18 Last updated: 2014-03-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Comprehensive Summary(1181 kB)3639 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1181 kBChecksum SHA-512
4482007a42a41cd543ef7a1e58d79d585b7583cdfaf506a8018161411ec2157a72c7c259b4efd62647931537184bfe73bc18c0de23002e28135a5e3ef5759854
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sjöberg, Sofia
By organisation
Department of Psychology
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 3639 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 5185 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf