Two things this time: we've got a lot of research to go over, and then a bit of a celebration! First the research.
The September issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology is out. Let's see what it has to offer:
- Using performance ratings as an assessment or a criteria? You'll want to look at Ng, et al.'s study of leniency and halo errors among superiors, peers, and subordinates of a sample of military officers.
- Speaking of criteria, you may be interested in Northcraft et al.'s study of how characteristics of the feedback environment influence resource use among competing tasks. Interesting stuff.
- Okay, let's turn to something more traditional. Berry, et al. look at correlations between cognitive ability tests and performance among different ethnic groups. Not surprising to those of you familiar with the research, the largest difference found was between White and Black samples.
- Another traditional (but always interesting) topic: designing Pareto-optimal selection systems when applicants belong to a mixture of populations. Check out De Corte, et al.'s piece. Oh, you might be interested in the in-press version.
- Dr. Lievens (a co-author on the previous study) has been busy. He and Fiona Patterson collaborate on a study of the incremental validity of simulations, both low fidelity (SJTs in this case) and high fidelity (assessment centers), beyond knowledge tests. Yes, both had incremental validity, and interestingly ACs showed incremental validity beyond SJTs. Check out the in press version as well.
- Wondering whether re-testing degrades criterion-related validity or impacts group differences? You're in luck because Van Iddekinge, et al. present the results of a study of just that. Short version? Re-testing actually did a lot of good.
- I know what you're thinking: "Might Lancaster's mid-P correction to Fischer's exact test improve adverse impact analysis?" Check out Biddle & Morris' study for an answer.
- And now that you've had your fill of that statistical analysis, you find your mind wandering to effect size indices for analyzing measurement equivalence. I'm right there with ya. So are Nye & Drasgow.
Let's turn now to the October issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology because there are a few articles I think might interest you...
- First, Lara Kammrath with a fascinating study of how people's understanding of trait behaviors influence their anticipation of how others will react.
- Speaking of fascinating, George, et al. present the results of a 50-year longitudinal study of personality traits predicting career behavior and success among women. It makes you realize again how much has changed since the 1960s!
- I tell ya, this issue is chalk full of goodness. Carlson et al. demonstrate that people can make valid distinctions between how they see themselves and how others see them--potentially informing the debate on personality inventories.
- Lastly, a piece by Specht et al. on how personality changes over the life span and why this might be. Fascinating implications for using personality inventories for selection.
Bonus article: remember how I mentioned using performance ratings above? Well you might be interested in an article by Lynn & Sturman in the most recent Journal of Applied Social Psychology where they found that restaurant customers sometimes rated the performance of same-race servers as better than those of different races--but it depended on the criterion.
FINALLY, I'm proud to announce that this blog has officially been going strong for five years. My first post (now incredibly hard to read) was in September of 2006. Back then the only other similar blog was Jamie Madigan's great (but now sadly defunct) blog, Selection Matters. My first email subscriber (from DDI if you're curious) came on a month later. Now I have almost 150 email subscribers and at least a couple hundred more who follow the feed. Around 3,000 individuals visit the site each month from over a hundred countries/territories (U.S., India, and Canada are 1-2-3). It's a labor of love and I thank you for reading!