Assessment

Question 1

6 Dimensions of AC

Answer 1

Arthur et al (2003); Woehr Arthur 2003: consideration of others, influencing others, oral comm, organizing/planning, problem solving, drive

Question 2

AC definition

Answer 2

Klimoski Brickner (1987)

Question 3

Biodata definition

Answer 3

Mael 1991 (historical events that may shape a person’s behavior)–> go to = Breugh et al., 2009

Question 4

VG

Answer 4

Schmidt et al., Sackett et al., 1985
degree to which evidence of validity obtained in one situation can be generaized to another without further study of validity

Question 5

Biodata meta

Answer 5

Hunter Hunter 1984 validity is .34, related to perform; predicts training success and safety

Question 6

Recs for biodata

Answer 6

Mael et al., 1996: reduce invasiveness (trama, religion, intimacy, stigma) provide clear instructions, use impersonal, transparent verifiable questions

Question 7

Biodata incremental validity

Answer 7

Mount et al., 2000 over GMA, FFM and experience

Question 8

Theoretical rationale for ACs

Answer 8

Klimoski Bricker 1987–> don’t really know why they work

Question 9

AC book chapter

Answer 9

Arthur Day 2011

Question 10

AC 3 factor (as opposed to 6)

Answer 10

Meriac et al., 2014: admin, relational skills and drive

Question 11

Validity of 6 dimensions

Answer 11

Woehr Arthur 2003: within dimension approach = higher convergent validity, FOR increases this as well

Question 12

Recommendations for ACs

Answer 12

Arthur Day 2011: based on JA, 6-8 dimensions, low participant rater ratio, transparent dimension, diff exercise soundly developed, rate across exercises within dimensions, train assessors (FOR) or use IOs

Question 13

Reliability of AC

Answer 13

.86 Arthur et al., 2003: Meruac et al 2008 each dimension

Question 14

Validity of ACs

Answer 14

Strong CRV OARs = .43 Hunter Hunter 1984, dimensions .25-.39 Arthur er al., 2003; incremental over CA & personality (Meriac et al. 2008)
WEAK construct

Question 15

Construct validity paradox

Answer 15

Binning Barrett 1989; Woehr Arthur, 2003

Question 16

Subgrp Diffs for ACs

Answer 16

Dean et al., 2008

Question 17

AC meta

Answer 17

Gaugler et al. 1987: valid for selection .41

Question 18

Reemergence of SJTs

Answer 18

Motowidlo et al. 1990

Question 19

SJT Grp diffs

Answer 19

Ployhart Holtz 2008

Smaller race than CA and larger than non cognitive predictors: W/B = .4, W/H =37, W/A = .47 M/F = .12

Question 20

SJTS = General knowledge

Answer 20

Lievens Motowidlo 2016

Question 21

SJT meta

Answer 21

McDaniel et al., 2001: CRV validity .26; corr of sjt & CA = .46 (has incremental over CA, C, job experiences and knowledge)

Question 22

SJT chapter

Answer 22

Ployhart MacKenzie (2001)

Question 23

SJT formats (rate, rank, most/least)

Answer 23

Arthur et al. (2014): rate SJT had stronger relationships w/ personality (A, C, & ES), weaker corrs w/ GMA = .16 (thus lower subgroup diffs) & higher levels of internal consistency = .95

Question 24

WS meta

Answer 24

Roth et al., 2005–> Hunter Hunter 1984 said .54, really .33 corr w/ job performance, correlated w/ CA at .32

Question 25

Integrity tests

Answer 25

Ones Viswesvaran (2001): rlt to JP, CWBs, and FFM–> corrected CRV of .15 for JP, .16 for training, .35 for CWB and .09 for turnover.

Question 26

Biodata– JP

Answer 26

Ployhart et al. (2005): one of the best selection devices for predicting performance and turnover; Bobko et al. (1999) .28 corr