Looking for recent (preferably meta-analytic) findings that yielded estimates of the proportion of shared variance among common personnel selection methods such as structured and unstructured interviews, assessment centers, general cognitive abilities tests, personality tests, etc. Thank you
This isn't a meta-analysis but the following paper provides correlations among assessment center exercises, cognitive ability tests, and perosnality tests:
Spector, P. E., Schneider, J. R., Vance, C. A., & Hezlett, S. A. (2000). The relation of cognitive ability and personality traits to assessment center performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1474-1491. .
What has been attached may be useful for you. Best wishes!
Good question.
Interviews typically add no Variance Accounted For. Assessment Centers are typically most effective. See the work of George Thornton for his superb analysis.
General intelligence continues to be a measure of success. Emotional intelligence is a good measure of behavioral success. Written exams are marginal and rarely add more than 10% of Variance Accounted For.
A good psychometrics book will be useful in understanding the limits and strengths of testing predictors. Most variation is based upon what an individual brings to the job and his/her willingness to give a position a "best effort."
Onboarding can actually make a huge difference and is often done poorly -- resulting in the success or failure of many candidates. See the attached.
The accompanying paper about "flair factors" may also help!
Cam Caldwell
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Organizational Psychology