Personnel selection.

By P. Sackett, Filip Lievens. Annual Review of Psychology, 2008

623 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We review developments in personnel selection since the previous review by Hough & Oswald (2000) in the Annual Review of Psychology. We organize the review around a taxonomic structure of possible bases for improved selection, which includes (a) better understanding of the criterion domain and criterion measurement, (b) improved measurement of existing predictor methods or constructs, (c) identification and measurement of new predictor methods or constructs, (d) improved identification of features that moderate or mediate predictor-criterion relationships, (e) clearer understanding of the relationship between predictors or between predictors and criteria (e.g., via meta-analytic synthesis), (f) identification and prediction of new outcome variables, (g) improved ability to determine how well we predict the outcomes of interest, (h) improved understanding of subgroup differences, fairness, bias, and the legal defensibility, (i) improved administrative ease with which selection systems can be used, (j) improved insight into applicant reactions, and (k) improved decision-maker acceptance of selection systems.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/48cd609c0334a3498897da6f9938577d824528c6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

A fuzzy AHP approach to personnel selection problem (2009, background): “Robertson and Smith [18] and Cortina et al. [9] present notable ability and availability of interviews to predict the performance of the personnel in the job.”
Self-presentation style in job interviews: the role of personality and culture (2013, methodology): “The interviewer’s evaluation task often requires integrating multiple criteria (Sackett & Lievens, 2008).”
A General Factor of Personality (GFP) from two meta-analyses of the Big Five: Digman (1997) and Mount, Barrick, Scullen, and Rounds (2005) (2008, background): “Since the personality facets that exist below the Big Five factors lie closest to the behavior expressed, they are often more diagnostic or better predictors than higher order traits (Sackett & Lievens, 2008).”
A GRA-based intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making method for personnel selection (2011, methodology): “There are some traditional techniques used in this process, mainly, completion of application forms, initial interview, employment test and background investigation (Robertson & Smith, 2001).”
A different look at why selection procedures work (2011, background): “…in selection procedures, as well as by the research concerning moderators and mediators of the validity of selection procedures (Huffcutt et al., 2001; Huffcutt, Roth, & McDaniel, 1996; Macan, 2009; Morgeson et al., 2007; Sackett & Lievens, 2008; Salgado & Moscoso, 2002; Woehr & Arthur, 2003).”
Strength in adversity: The influence of psychological capital on job search (2012, background): “More often than not, researchers ended up inferring their results from the validity statistics of a restricted sample (Thorndike, 1949).”
Performance Enhancement in an Uninhabited Air Vehicle Task Using Psychophysiologically Determined Adaptive Aiding (2007, background): “Because individual operators possess different cognitive abilities and skill levels, optimal adaptive aiding should occur when the aiding is implemented based upon the momentary capabilities of each operator (Hedge & Borman, 2006).”
Is Stereotype Threat a Useful Construct for Organizational Psychology Research and Practice? (2014, background): “…among personnel selection researchers on the role of stereotype threat in high-stakes workplace selection and higher education admission contexts (Sackett, 2003; Sackett & Ryan, 2012; see also Sackett, Borneman, & Connelly, 2008; Sackett & Lievens, 2008; Sackett, Schmitt, Ellingson, & Kabin, 2001).”
Measures of Program Effectiveness Based on Retrospective Pretest Data: Are All Created Equal? (2011, methodology): “Based on our analysis of literature (Lam & Bengo, 2003; Schwarz, 1996, 1999; Sprangers & Hoogstraten, 1989; Taylor et al., 2009; Terborg & Davis, 1982; Thorndike, 1949), we deemed it was likely that data from the first two research questions would correlate.”
Nonsense, common sense, and science of expert performance: Talent and individual differences (2014, methodology): “There are statistical procedures for estimating the population correlations when such conditions are encountered (e.g., see Thorndike, 1949), but these have never been reported in the deliberate practice literature, even when ‘intellectual abilities’ are assessed in samples of highly-selected elite…”
The State of Research on Situational Judgment Tests: A Content Analysis and Directions for Future Research (2014, methodology): “For example, Sackett and Lievens (2008) noted that SJTs have now established themselves as valid predictors in both employment and educational domains.”