DERIVATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF A META‐ANALYTIC MATRIX INCORPORATING COGNITIVE ABILITY, ALTERNATIVE PREDICTORS, AND JOB PERFORMANCE

A variety of recent articles in the personnel selection literature have used analyses of meta-analytically derived matrices to draw general conclusions for the field. The purpose of this article is to construct a matrix that incorporates as complete information as possible on the relationships among cognitive ability measures, three sets of alternative predictors, and job performance, We build upon a starting matrix used by Schmitt, Rodgers, Chan, Sheppard, and Jennings (1997). Mean differences, by race, for each of the measures and the potential for adverse impact of predictor composites are also considered. We demonstrate that the use of alternative predictors alone to predict job performance (in the absence of cognitive ability) lowers the potential for adverse impact. However, in contrast to recent claims, adverse impact continues to occur at many commonly used selection ratios. Future researchers are encouraged to use our matrix and to expand upon it as new primary research becomes available. We also report and reaffirm many methodological lessons along the way, including the many judgment calls that appear in an effort of this magnitude and a reminder that the field could benefit from even greater conceptual care regarding what is labeled an “alternative predictor.” Directions for future meta-analyses and for future primary research activities are also derived.

[1]  Steven D. Maurer,et al.  The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. , 1994 .

[2]  D. Ones,et al.  Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling , 1995 .

[3]  Winfred Arthur,et al.  Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. , 1994 .

[4]  Frank L. Schmidt,et al.  Biographical Data in Employment Selection: Can Validities Be Made Generalizable? , 1990 .

[5]  John P. Wanous,et al.  The role of judgment calls in meta-analysis. , 1989 .

[6]  A. Dalessio,et al.  COMBINING BIODATA TEST AND INTERVIEW INFORMATION: PREDICTING DECISIONS AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA , 1994 .

[7]  Michael A. Campion,et al.  Biodata phenomenology: Recruiters' perceptions and use of biographical information in resume screening. , 1994 .

[8]  J. Conway,et al.  Comparing Structured Interview Question Types: Construct Validity and Applicant Reactions , 1999 .

[9]  Neal Schmitt,et al.  Adverse impact and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations , 1997 .

[10]  Philip L. Roth,et al.  Racial Group Differences in Employment Interview Evaluations , 1998 .

[11]  J. Hunter,et al.  Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance , 1984 .

[12]  F. Schmidt,et al.  The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. , 1998 .

[13]  P. Wright,et al.  The structured interview: Additional studies and a meta‐analysis , 1989 .

[14]  Amy L. Kristof PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT: AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW OF ITS CONCEPTUALIZATIONS, MEASUREMENT, AND IMPLICATIONS , 1996 .

[15]  Steven F. Cronshaw,et al.  A meta‐analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview* , 1988 .

[16]  K. Kraiger,et al.  Study of race effects in objective indices and subjective evaluations of performance: A meta-analysis of performance criteria. , 1986 .

[17]  Keith Hattrup,et al.  The effects of varying conceptualizations of job performance on adverse impact, minority hiring, and predicted performance. , 1997 .

[18]  N. Schmitt,et al.  An Evaluation of Two Strategies for Reducing Adverse Impact and Their Effects on Criterion-Related Validity , 1996 .

[19]  G. C. Thornton,et al.  EXAMINING SELECTION UTILITY WHERE COMPETING PREDICTORS DIFFER IN ADVERSE IMPACT , 1997 .

[20]  L. Gottfredson Reconsidering fairness: A matter of social and ethical priorities , 1988 .

[21]  Paul R. Sackett,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF FORMING MULTI‐PREDICTOR COMPOSITES ON GROUP DIFFERENCES AND ADVERSE IMPACT , 1997 .

[22]  R. Reilly,et al.  VALIDITY AND FAIRNESS OF SOME ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES , 1982 .

[23]  Paul R. Sackett,et al.  Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and White-Black differences in performance ratings. , 1991 .

[24]  Philip L. Roth,et al.  A research agenda for muti-attribute utility analysis in human resource management , 1997 .

[25]  J. P. Near,et al.  ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: ITS NATURE AND ANTECEDENTS , 1983 .

[26]  Neal Schmitt,et al.  Experience-based and situational interview questions: Studies of validity. , 1995 .

[27]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Applicants' reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: the effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. , 1998, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Gender, age, and race differences on overt integrity tests: Results across four large-scale job applicant datasets. , 1998 .

[29]  Bruce J. Avolio,et al.  Race effects in performance evaluations: Controlling for ability, education, and experience. , 1991 .

[30]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity of selection tests , 1997 .

[31]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS , 1991 .

[32]  Jeffrey J. Mchenry,et al.  PROJECT A VALIDITY RESULTS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREDICTOR AND CRITERION DOMAINS , 1990 .

[33]  Michael P. Kirsch,et al.  METAANALYSES OF VALIDITY STUDIES PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1964 AND 1982 AND THE INVESTIGATION OF STUDY CHARACTERISTICS , 1984 .

[34]  Auralee Childs,et al.  Successfully predicting career success: An application of the biographical inventory. , 1986 .

[35]  Michael A. McDaniel,et al.  A meta-analytic investigation of cognitive ability in employment interview evaluations: Moderating characteristics and implications for incremental validity. , 1996 .