I've got a hodgepodge of things for you this time, some research mixed with some other interesting things.
First, the March issue of Journal of Applied Psychology, which has been out for a while and I've been a little slow to get to:
- Becker and Cropanzano on the (non-linear) relationship between job performance and voluntary turnover (people tend to skedaddle when they're on a performance skid).
- Podsakoff, et al. with a fascinating study of the impact of OCBs on interviewee ratings. Turns out they made quite an impact, particularly for the higher-level position, and particularly when candidates demonstrated low levels of OCB (e.g., helping, loyalty). Raters were probably surprised that a situation that so clearly calls for impression management failed to elicit it.
- McDaniel, et al. with a great piece on SJTs. The authors describe two adjustments that can be made to traditional SJTs that improve validity, reduce Black-White mean differences and score elevation due to coaching, and reduce total length. That all sounds pretty good to me, and you can read an in press version here.
- Last but not least, Swider, et al. report the results of a study on job search effort and voluntary turnover. Job embededness appears to play an important rule, as does job satisfaction and the availability of alternatives.
Speaking of McDaniel, he and his colleagues have written an article for an upcoming issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology with the provocative title of "The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection." SIOP members should be sure to consider submitting a commentary, and even if you're not a member, you should check out the in press version; it's a good read.
Speaking of adverse impact...I attended a fascinating webinar sponsored by PTC/MC on Wednesday where Kenneth Yusko of Marymount University described the development of the Siena Reasoning Test, which uses a slightly different question type (along with some other techniques) to reduce d but maintain criterion-related validity. Provocative stuff, and one of the the holy grails of personnel assessment. Which probably explains why Yusko and his colleagues are being presented with the 2011 M. Scott Myers award at this year's SIOP conference. Interested? Check it out yourself. You can also flip through slides from a similar presentation at the 2008 IPAC conference.
Speaking of IPAC, have you registered for the July conference in D.C.? It's shaping up to be another great one--just check out some of the pre-conference workshops.
Finally, if you're up for a little heated discussion, head on over to ERE, where Wendell Williams laments about the increasing number of people who claim to be "experts" in assessment but who lack the chops. He particularly calls out poorly informed bloggers. Hey...wait a minute...
2 comments:
Hi,
First I'd like to thank you for motivating me to keep writing.
Just went through your words. I agree to the last link regarding HR bloggers aren't experts. But being member of some society or other attributes looks more of preaching by Dr. rather than a test.
I'd like to add in it that publishing good quality content (More than overviews or tips) preferably in a peer reviewed journal is also sign of expert.
I certainly agree that publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is a sign of expertise, but I think the question is one of definition: what "expertise" are you looking for?
Do you want someone who knows the subject matter inside and out? Or do you want someone who knows how to implement a solution with a high chance of success? Or both.
If we're just talking about expert writers, that's a little trickier, because IMHO it has as much to do with cognitive ability as it does with a degree, but it's hard to argue that SOME amount of formal training is required.
Post a Comment