Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
June 14, 2024International Journal of Selection and Assessment

The need for “Considered Estimation” versus “Conservative Estimation” when ranking or comparing predictors of job performance

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Authors

PBPhilip BobkoPRPhilip L. RothHLHuy Le

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Methodological evaluation reveals substantial estimation bias in employee selection procedures, highlighting the need for considered estimation when ranking job performance predictors.

Key Points

  • Conservative estimation introduces substantial bias when ranking 25 selection procedures, as differential range restriction corrections confound observed validity differences.
  • Methodological evaluation demonstrates that mixing predictor methods and constructs ignores construct saturation, producing spurious operational validity comparisons.
  • Calls for considered estimation require uniform range restriction adjustments across all predictors, while incorporating sensitivity analyses and study nonindependence.

Cite This Study

Bobko et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e64b22b6db6435875db751https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12489
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Selection tests work better than we think they do, and have for years2024 · 11 citations
  2. 2Reducing shrinkage in diversity tradeoff curves for personnel selection: Comparing local validity studies, meta-analysis, and Bayes analysis.2026
  3. 3Parameter estimation in Comparative Judgement2024
  4. 4Personnel Selection2007 · 281 citations
  5. 5A Proposal for Evaluating the Validity of Holistic-Based Admission Processes2013 · 19 citations