Psychology 864
Spring 2013
Instructor: Dr. Ann Marie Ryan
Office: 333 Psychology Building
Phone: 517-353-8855
Email: ryanan@msu.edu
Office hours: by appointment
Class location:
Class will meet 8:30-11:20 on Wednesdays in Psychology Building Room 325.
Objectives:
 To learn how to develop and administer effective staffing procedures
 To become knowledgeable about cutting-edge theory and research related to staffing.
Text (required):
Guion, R. (2011). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. (2nd
edition). New York: Routledge.
SIOP (2003) Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed).
SIOP. This document is posted on ANGEL and is referred to in a lot of the readings throughout the
term. My advice would be to read it early on and then keep it handy to refer to throughout.
Recommended resources:
While we are reading selections from these volumes, they contain much more than we can cover,
and some of that may be particularly relevant for your projects and/or paper.
J. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds). (2010) Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
N. Schmitt (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press.
J.C. Scott & D.H. Reynolds (Eds.) (2010) Handbook of workplace assessment. SIOP: Jossey-Bass.
McPhail, S. M. (2007). Alternative validation strategies: Developing new and leveraging existing
validity evidence. SIOP: Jossey-Bass.
Outtz, J.L. (2010). Adverse impact: implications for organizational staffing and high stakes selection.
SIOP. Jossey-Bass
N.T. Tippins & S. Adler (Eds). (2011) Technology-enhanced assessment of talent. SIOP: Jossey Bass.
Landy, F.J. (2005). Employment discrimination litigation: behavioral, quantitative and legal
perspectives. SIOP: Jossey Bass.
The International Journal of Selection and Assessment contains articles focused on the content of this
course and is a good resource for specific issues we are covering.
1
Website:
I rely on the ANGEL website to communicate with students regarding the class. All required
readings are posted there (for your use only), as well as additional resources of interest. Grades are also
posted via ANGEL as are announcements regarding classes.
Grading Criteria:
Participation (class attendance, preparation, discussion)
Validation data analysis
Reflection assignments
Research proposal
Applied Project (deliverable and organizational feedback)
15%
5%
15%
25%
40%
Information on specific assignments can be found under the Lessons tab/Assignments folder on Angel.
Attendance Policy: For graduate courses, there is a lot of in-class exchange of ideas and discussion of
readings. Missing class is problematic and will be considered in awarding of participation points.
Absences will be excused only in accordance with ombudsmen’s website on Attendance Policy (see
www.msu.edu/unit/ombud)
Academic Integrity: Article 2.3.3 of the Academic Freedom Report states that “The student shares
with the faculty the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of scholarship, grades, and professional
standards.” In addition, the Psychology Department adheres to the policies on academic honesty as
specified in General Student Regulations 1.0, Protection of scholarship and grades, the all-University
Policy on Integrity of scholarship and Grades, and Ordinance 17.00, Examinations (see MSU website).
Therefore, unless specifically directed otherwise, you are expected to complete all course assignments,
including homework, papers and exams, without assistance from any source. You are expected to
develop original work for this course; therefore, you may not submit course work you completed for
another course to satisfy the requirements for this course. Students who violate MSU rules will receive
a failing grade in this course.
Consistent with MSU’s efforts to enhance student learning, foster honesty, and maintain integrity in our
academic processes, instructors may use a tool called Turnitin to compare a student’s work with
multiple sources. The tool compares each student’s work with an extensive database of prior
publications and papers, providing links to possible matches and a ‘similarity score’. The tool does not
determine whether plagiarism has occurred or not. Instead, the instructor must make a complete
assessment and judge the originality of the student’s work. Research proposal submissions to this course
will be checked using this tool. Students should submit papers to Turnitin Dropboxes without identifying
information included in the paper (e.g. name or student number), the system will automatically show this
info to faculty in your course when viewing the submission, but the information will not be retained by
Turnitin. Student submissions will be retained only in the MSU repository hosted by Turnitin. This
means that you cannot turn in the same paper across multiple courses but you can turn the paper in to a
source outside of MSU (e.g., a journal, a grant proposal, a conference submission) and it will not be
flagged as previously submitted.
2
If you require special accommodations with regard to a disability, please discuss that with me.
Commercialization of lecture notes and university-provided course materials is not permitted in this
course.
Readings:
Guion Chapters 5 and 6 are a review of 818. Guion Chapter 13 should also be a review if you have had
818 and 860. You should review these chapters on your own, but feel free to talk with me about any
questions you might have about content – basic measurement principles are foundational to selection
research, so it is important that you understand these concepts.
January 9: Course introduction
Guion Ch 1
Bangerter, A., Roulin, N. & Konig, C.J. (2012). Personnel selection as a signaling game. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 719-738.
RANKING OF SITES DUE JAN 11
January 16: Job analysis
Guion Ch 2
Schippman, J.S. (2010). Competencies, job analysis, and the next generation of modeling. P 197-231.
In J.C. Scott & D.H. Reynolds (Eds.) Handbook of workplace assessment. SIOP: Jossey-Bass.
Sanchez, J. & Levine, E. (2012). The rise and fall of job analysis and the future of work analysis.
Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 397.
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B. (2011). Doing
competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 225-262.
Schumacher, S., Kleinmann, M., & König, C. J. (2012). Job analysis by incumbents and laypersons:
Does item decomposition and the use of less complex items make the ratings of both groups more
accurate? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(2), 69-76.
ASSIGNMENT: DISCUSSION BOARD ON ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT;
SET UP FIRST MEETING WITH SITE
3
January 23: Criteria
Guion Ch 3
Cleveland, J.N. & Collella, A (2010). Criterion validity and criterion deficiency: what we measure well
and what we ignore. In J. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds). Handbook of employee selection. Taylor &
Francis. 551-567.
Borman, W. C & Smith, T. N. (2012). The use of objective measures as criteria in I/O Psychology. In
N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press.
Murphy, K. (2010). How a broader definition of the criterion domain changes our thinking about
adverse impact. In Outtz, J.L. Adverse impact: implications for organizational staffing and high
stakes selection.
O’Boyle E & Aguinis H (2012). The best and the rest: revisiting the norm of normality of individual
performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 79-119.
ASSIGNMENT: JOBS AND CRITERIA REFLECTION
January 30: Validation Basics
Guion Ch 7
Sackett, P.R., Putka, D.J. & McCloy, R.A. (2012). The concept of validity and the process of validation.
In N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press.
Jeanneret, P.R. & Zedeck, S. (2010). Professional guidelines/standards. In J. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds).
Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis.
Focal Article
Murphy, K. R. (2009). Content validation is useful for many things, but validity isn’t one of them.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on science and practice, 2, 465-468.
Commentaries: pp. 469-516. READ AT LEAST 3 OF THE COMMENTARIES
Guion, R. M. (2009). Was this trip necessary?
Thornton, G. C. (2009). Evidence of content matching is evidence of validity.
Putka, D. J., McCloy, R. A., Ingerick, M., O’Shea, P. G., & Whetzel, D. L. (2009). Links among
bases of validation evidence: Absence of empirical evidence is not evidence of absence.
Tonowski, R. F. (2009). “Content” still belongs with “validity”
4
Binning, J. F., & LeBreton, J. M. (2009). Coherent conceptualization is useful for many things,
and understanding validity is one of them.
Highhouse, S. (2009). Tests don’t measure jobs: the meaning of content validation.
Goldstein, I. L., & Zedeck, S. (2009). Content validity and Murphy’s angst.
Kim, B. H., & Oswald, F. L. (2009). Clarifying the concept and context of content validation.
Davison, H. K., & Bing, M. N. (2009). Content validity does matter for the criterion-related
validity of personality tests.
Spengler, M., Gelleri, P P., & Schuler, H. (2009). The construct behind content validity: New
approaches to a better understanding.
O’Neill, T. A., Goffin, R. D., & Tett, R. P. (2009). Content validation is fundamental for
optimizing the criterion validity of personality tests.
Tan, J. A. (2009). Babies, bathwater, and validity: Content validity is useful in the validation
process.
Reply:
Murphy, K. R. (2009). Is content-related evidence useful in validating selection tests?
PP. 517-526.
ASSIGNMENT: OUTLINE FOR DELIVERABLE
February 6: Further issues in validation
Guion Ch 12, p417-419
Gibson, W. M.. & Caplinger, J. A. (2007). Transportation of validation results. In S. M. McPhail (Ed.),
Alternative validation strategies: Developing new and leveraging existing validity evidence (pp. 2981). John Wiley.
McDaniel, M. A. (2007).Validity generalization as a test validation approach. In S. M. McPhail (Ed.),
Alternative validation strategies: Developing new and leveraging existing validity evidence (pp.
159-180). John Wiley.
Newman, D. A., Jacobs, R. R., & Bartram, D. (2007). Choosing the best method for local validity
estimation: Relative accuracy of meta-analysis versus a local study versus Bayes-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 1394-1413.
Focal article
Johnson, J.W., Steel, P., Scherbaum, C.A., Hoffman, CC, Jeanneret, P.R. & Foster, J. (2010). Validation
is like motor oil: synthetic is better. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 305-328.
5
Commentaries (p329-370):
READ AT LEAST 3
Oswald & Hough Validity in a jiffy: how synthetic validation contributes to personnel selection
Bartram, Warr & Brown. Let’s focus on two-stage alignment not just on overall performance
Russell. Better at what?
Schmidt & Oh Can synthetic validity methods achieve discriminant validity
Harvey. Motor oil or snake oil: synthetic validity is a tool not a panacea
Murphy: Synthetic validity: a great idea whose time never came
Vancouver: Improving I-O Science through synthetic validity
Hollweg: Synthetic oil is better for whom?
McCloy, Putka & Gibby. Developing an online synthetic validation tool
Response: Steel et al. At sea with synthetic validity p 371-383.
ASSIGNMENT: PAPER TOPIC
February 13: US Legal issues, reducing adverse impact, bias analysis
Guion Ch 4 and 9
ADVERSE IMPACT/LEGAL READINGS
Outtz, J.L. & Newman, D.A. (2010). A theory of adverse impact. In Outtz, J.L. (Ed). Adverse impact:
implications for organizational staffing and high stakes selection. P 53-94.
Landy, F.J., Gutman, A. & Outtz, J.L. (2010). A sampler of legal principles in employment selection. J.
Farr & N. Tippins (Eds). (2010) Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
Ryan, A.M. & Powers, C. (2012). Workplace diversity. N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of
Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press.
Focal article:
McDaniel, M.A., Kepes, S. & Banks, G.C. (2011). The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field
of personnel selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 494-514.
Commentaries: READ AT LEAST 3
6
Dunleavy et al. Guidelines, Principles, Standards, and the Courts: why can’t they all just get along?
Tonowski. The Uniform Guidelines and personnel selection: identify and fix the right problem
Outtz. Abolishing the Uniform Guidelines: Be careful what you wish for
Barrett, Miguel & Doverspike. The Uniform Guidelines: Better the devil you know.
Sharf. Equal employment versus equal opportunity: a naked political agenda covered by a scientific
fig leaf.
Reynolds & Knapp SIOP as advocate: developing a platform for action.
Sackett The Uniform Guidelines is not a scientific document: implications for expert testimony
Brink & Crenshaw The affronting of the Uniform Guidelines: from propaganda to discourse
Mead & Morris About babies and bathwater: retaining core principles of the Uniform Guidelines
Jacobs, Deckert & Silva Adverse impact is far more complicated than the Uniform Guidelines
indicate
Hanges, Aiken, & Salmon The Devil is in the details (and the context): a call for care in discussing
the Uniform Guidelines.
Reply: McDaniel, Kepes & Banks. Encouraging debate on the Uniform Guidelines and the disparate
impact theory of discrimination.
TEST BIAS READINGS
Kuncel, N.R. & Klieger, D.M. (2012). Predictive bias in work and educational settings. J. Farr & N.
Tippins (Eds). (2010) Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S.A. & Pierce, C.A. (2010). Revival of test bias research in preemployment
testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 648-680.
Focal article: Meade, A. W., & Tonidandel, S. (2010). Not seeing clearly with Cleary: What test bias
analyses do and do not tell us. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on science
and practice, 3, 192-205.
Commentaries: READ AT LEAST 3
Cronshaw & Chung-Yan The need for even further clarity about Cleary
Woehr What test bias analyses do and don’t tell us: let’s not assume we have a can opener
7
Sackett & Bobko. Conceptual and technical issues in conducting and interpreting differential
prediction analyses
Putka, Trippe & Vasilopoulos Diagnosing when evidence of bias is problematic: methodological
cookbooks and the unfortunate complexities of reality.
Borneman Using meta-analysis to increase power in differential prediction analyses
Colarelli, Han & Yang Biased against whom? The problems of “group” definition and membership
in test bias analyses.
Response: Meade & Tonidandel Final thoughts on measurement bias and differential prediction.
February 20: Score use/Decision making/ Basic test development
Guion Ch 8; Ch 11 p394-398only; Ch 12 p411-417 and 421-447; and Ch 15, p 521-534only
Kehoe, J. (2010). Cut scores and adverse impact. In Outtz, J.L. (Ed). Adverse impact: implications for
organizational staffing and high stakes selection. P289-322
Hattrup, K. (2012). Using composite predictors in selection. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook
of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press.
Johnson, J.W. & Oswald, F, (2010). Test administration and the use of test scores. J. Farr & N. Tippins
(Eds). (2010) Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
Mueller, L., Norris, D., & Oppler, S. (2007). Implementation based on alternative validation procedures:
ranking, cut scores, banding, and compensatory models. In S. M. McPhail (Ed.), Alternative
validation strategies: Developing new and leveraging existing validity evidence (pp. 349-405).
John Wiley.
DeCorte, W., Sackett, P.R. & Lievens, F. (2011) Designing pareto-optimal selection systems:
formalizing the decisions required for selection system development. JAP, 96, 907-926.
ASSIGNMENT: VALIDATION ANALYSIS
February 27: Ability and job knowledge predictors/technology in testing/adaptive testing
Guion Ch 10, p335-352 only; Guion Ch 11 p 375-389 and p 391-394
ABILITIES
Ones, D.S., Dilchert, S. & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). Cognitive abilities. I n N. Schmitt (Ed.). The
Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press.
8
Berry, C. M., Clark, M.A. & McClure, T.K. (2011). Racial/ethnic differences in the criterion-related
validity of cognitive ability tests: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96, 881-906.
Focal article
Scherbaum, Goldstein, Yusko, & Ryan (2012). Intelligence 2.0: reestablishing a research program on g
in I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 128-48.
Commentaries READ AT LEAST 3
Ackerman, P.L. & Beier The problem is in the definition: g and intelligence in I-O psychology
Lievens, F. & Reeve, C.L. Where I-O psychology should really (re)start its investigation of
intelligence constructs and their measurement
Brouwers, S.A. & Van de Vijver, F.J.R. Intelligence 2.0 in I-O psychology: revival or
contextualization?
Lang, J.W.B. & Bliese, P.D. I-O psychology and progressive research programs on intelligence
Cucina, J.M., Gast, I.F. & Su, C. g 2.0: factor analysis, filed findings, facts, fashionable topics
and future steps.
Oswald, F.L. & Hough, L. I-O 2.0 from intelligence 1.5: staying (just) behind the cutting edge
of intelligence theories
Helms, J.E. A legacy of eugenics underlies racial-group comparisons in intelligence testing.
Weinhardt, J.M. & Vancouver, J.B. Intelligent interventions
Huffcutt, A.I., Goebl, A.P. & Culbertson, S.S. The engine is important, but the driver is essential:
the case for executive functioning
Postlewaite, B.E., Giluk, T.L. & Schmidt, F.L. I-O Psychologists and intelligence research:
active, aware, and applied
Response:
I-O Psychology and Intelligence: A starting point established.
TECHNOLOGY
Scott, J.C. & Lezotte, D. V. (2012). Web-based assessments. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford
Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press.
McCloy, RA & Gibby, RE (2011). Computerized adaptive testing. P153-189. In N.T. Tippins & S.
Adler (Eds). Technology-enhanced assessment of talent. SIOP: Jossey Bass.
9
Fetzer, M. & Kantrowitz, T. (2011). Implementing computer adaptive tests. P 380-393. In N.T. Tippins
& S. Adler (Eds). Technology-enhanced assessment of talent. SIOP: Jossey Bass.
Focal article
Tippins, N.T. (2009). Internet alternatives to traditional proctored testing: where are we now?
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on science and practice, 2, 2-10.
Commentaries: (pp. 11-68) READ AT LEAST THREE
Bartram, D. The international test commission guidelines on computer-based and internetdelivered testing.
Pearlman, K. Unproctored internet testing: Practical, legal, and ethical concerns.
Hense, R., Golden, J. H., & Burnett, J. Making the case for unproctored internet testing: Do the
rewards outweigh the risks?
Kaminski, K. A., & Hemingway, M. A. To proctor or not to proctor? Balancing business needs
with validity in online assessment.
Weiner, J. A., & Morrison, J. D. Unproctored online testing: Environmental conditions and
validity.
Foster, D. Secure, online, high-stakes testing: Science fiction or business reality?
Burke, E. Preserving the integrity of online testing.
Arthur, W., Glaze, R. M., Villado, A. J., Taylor, J. E. Unproctored internet-based tests of
cognitive ability and personality: Magnitude of cheating and response distortion.
Drasgow, F., Nye, C. D., Guo, J., & Tay, L. Cheating on proctored tests: The other side of the
unproctored debate.
Do, B. Research on unproctored internet testing.
Reynolds, D. H., Wasko, L. E., Sinar, E. F., Raymark, P. H., & Jones, J. A. UIT or not UIT?
That is not the only question.
Beaty, J. C., Dawson, C. R., Fallaw, S. S., & Kantrowitz, T. M. Recovering the scientistpractitioner model: How IOs should respond to unproctored internet testing.
Gibby, R. E., Ispas, D., McCloy, R. A., & Biga, A. Moving beyond the challenges to make
unproctored internet testing a reality.
Reply pp. 69-76.
Tippins, N. T. Where is the unproctored internet testing train headed now?
10
March 6: SPRING BREAK
March 13: Issues in use of personality measures, interests, integrity tests, and emotional
intelligence
Guion Ch 11, p401-409 only
PERSONALITY
Hough, L. & Dilchert, S. 2010. Personality: Its measurement and validity for employee selection. In J.
Farr & N. Tippins (Eds). (2010) Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
INTERESTS
Van Iddekinge CH, Roth PL, Putka D & Lanivich SE (2011). Are you interested? A meta-analysis of
relations between vocational interests and employee performance and turnover. JAP, 96, 1167-1194.
INTEGRITY
Target article on integrity:
Van Iddekinge, CH, Roth, PL, Raymark PH & Odle-Dusseau 2012 The criterion-related validity
of integrity tests: an updated meta-analysis JAP, 97, 499-531.
Commentaries READ ALL
Harris, WG., Jones JW, Klion, R, Arnold, DW, Camara, W & Cunningham, MR (2012). Test
publishers’ perspective on “an updated meta-analysis”: comment on Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark &
Odle-Dusseau (2012), JAP, 97, 531-53
Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C & Schmidt, FL (2012). Integrity tests predict counterproductive
work behahviors and job performance well: comment on Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark & OdleDusseau (2012), JAP, 97, 537-542
Reply:
Van Iddekinge, CH, Roth, PL, Raymark PH & Odle-Dusseau 2012. The critical role of the
research question, inclusion criteria, and transparency in meta-anlayses of integrity test research: a reply
to Harris et al (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012), JAP, 97, 543-549
Perspective:
Sackett, PR & Schmitt N (2012). On reconciling conflicting meta-analytic findings regarding
integrity test validity. JAP 97 550-556.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Focal article
Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Towards clarification of a concept. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on science and practice. 3, p110-126
Commentaries: READ AT LEAST 3
Cote, S. Taking the “intelligence” in emotional intelligence seriously
11
Gignac, G.E On a nomenclature for emotional intelligence research
Petrides KV Trait emotional intelligence theory
Roberts RD Matthew G & Zeidner M Emotional intelligence: muddling through theory and
measurement
Jordon PJ Dasborough MT Daus CS & Ashkanasy NM A call to context
Van Rooy DL Whitman D & Viswesvaran C Emotional Intelligence: additional questions still
unanswered
Harms PD & Crede M Remaining issues in emotional intelligence research: construct overlap,
method artifacts and lack of incremental validity
Newman DA Joseph DL & MacCann C Emotional intelligence and job performance: the
importance of emotion regulation and emotional labor context
Antonakis J & Dietz J Emotional intelligence: on definitions, neuroscience and marshmellows
Kaplan S Cortina J & Ruark GA Oops…we did it again: industrial-organizational’s focus on
emotional intelligence instead of on its relationships to work outcomes.
Riggio RE Before emotional intelligence: research on nonverbal, emotional and social
competences.
Reply: Cherniss, C. Emotional Intelligence: new insights and further clarifications.
ASSIGNMENT: ASSESSMENT REFLECTION
March 20: Issues in use of interviews and biodata
Guion Ch 14
INTERVIEWS
Diboye, R.L., Macan, T. & Shahani-Denning, C. (2012). The selection interview from the interviewer
and applicant perspectives: can’t have one without the other. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford
Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press.
Melchers, K.G., Lienhardt, N., von Aarburg, M. & Kleinmann, M 2011 Is more structure really better?
A comparison of frame-of-reference training and descriptively anchored rating scales to improve
interviewers’ rating quality. Personnel Psychology 64, 53-87.
Swider, B.W., Barrick MR., Harris, TB & Stoverink AC (2011) Managing and creating an image in the
interview: the role of interviewee initial impressions. JAP 96, 1275-1288
12
Barrick, MR, Swider BW, & Stewart G (2010). Initial evaluations in the interview: relationships with
subsequent interviewer evaluations and employment offers. JAP 95 1163-1172.
BIODATA
Mumford, M.D., Barrett, J.D. & Hester, K.S. (2012). Background data: use of experiential knowledge
in personnel selection. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and
Selection. Oxford Press.
Levashina, J., Morgeson, F.P. & Campion, M.A. 2012. Tell me some more: exploring how verbal
ability and item verifiability influence responses to biodata questions in a high-stakes selection context
Personnel Psychology, 65, 359-383.
ASSIGNMENT: PROPOSAL DUE
March 27: Issues in use of SJTs, worksamples, simulations and assessment centers, individual
assessment
Guion Ch 11 p389-391 only; p534-552
Lievens, F. & DeSoete B (2012). Simulations. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of
Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press.383Lievens F & Sackett PR 2012 The validity of interpersonal skills assessment via situational judgement
tests for predicting academic success and job performance JAP 97 460-468
Roth, P.L., Buster, M.A. & Bobko, P(2011). Updating the trainability tests literature on black-white
subgroup differences and reconsidering criterion-related validity, JAP, 96, 34-45.
Hoffman, B.J., Melchers KG, Blair CA Kleinmann M & Ladd RT 2011 Exercises and dimensions are
the currency of assessment centers. Personnel Psychology, 64, 351-395.
Focal article:
Silzer R & Jeanneret R 2011. Individual psychological assessment: a practice and science in search of
common ground. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 4, 270-296.
Commentaries: READ AT LEAST 3
Hazucha, J.F., Ramesh A Goff M Crandell S Gerstner C Sloan E Bank J & van Katwyk P Individual
psychological assessment: the poster child of blended science and practice
Kuncel NR & Highhouse S Complex predictions and assessor mystique
Laser SA An iconoclast’s view of individual psychological assessment: what it is and what it is not.
13
Klehe U-C Scientific principles versus practical realities: insights from organizational theory to
individual psychological assessment
Lowman RL The question of integration and criteria in individual psychological assessment
Morris SB, Kwaske IH & Daisley RR The validity of individual psychological assessments
Tippins NT What’s wrong with content-oriented validity studies for individual psychological
assessments?
Miguel R & Miklos S Individual executive assessment: sufficient science, standards and principles
Moses J Individual psychological assessment: you pay for what you get
Doverspike D Lessons from the classroom: teaching an individual psychological assessment course.
Response:
Jeanneret R & Silzer R Individual psychological assessment: a core competency for industrialorganizational psychology.
ASSIGNMENT: Tentative draft of report (optional)
Schedule Presentation practices (as needed) week of April 16 and April 23
April 3: Cases week
NO CLASS MEETING THIS WEEK
Sellman, WS, Born DH Strickland WJ & Ross JJ (2010). Selection and classification in the US Military.
In J. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds). (2010) Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
Jacobs, R & Denning DL (2010). Public sector employment In J. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds). (2010)
Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
Malamut, A,van Rooy DL, Davis, VA (2011) Bridging the digital divide across a global business:
development of a technology-enabled selection system for low-literacy applicants. In N.T. Tippins & S.
Adler (Eds). Technology-enhanced assessment of talent. SIOP: Jossey Bass.
Grubb AD (2011) Promotional assessment at the FBI: how the search for a high-tech solution led to a
high-fidelity low-tech simulation. In N.T. Tippins & S. Adler (Eds). Technology-enhanced assessment
of talent. SIOP: Jossey Bass.
Hense R & Janovics J (2011) Case study of technology-enhanced assessment centers. In N.T. Tippins &
S. Adler (Eds). Technology-enhanced assessment of talent. SIOP: Jossey Bass.
14
Cucina, JM, Busciglio HH, Thomas PH, Callen NF, Walker DD & Schoepfer RJG (2011) Video-based
testing at US customs and border protection. In N.T. Tippins & S. Adler (Eds). Technology-enhanced
assessment of talent. SIOP: Jossey Bass.
ASSIGNMENT: CASES REFLECTION
April 10: Recruitment
Ryan AM & Delany T (2010). Attracting job candidates to organizations. In J. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds).
(2010) Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
Breaugh JA (2012). Employee recruitment: current knowledge and suggestions for future research. In
N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press
Earnest DR Allen DG & Landis RS (2011) Mechanisms linking realistic job previews with turnover: a
meta-analytic path analysis. Personnel Psychology, 64, 865-898
Uggerslev KL Fassina NE & Kraichy D (2012) Recruiting through the stages: a met-analytic test of
predictors of applicant attraction at different stages of the recruiting process Personnel Psychology, 65,
597-660.
Griepentrog BBK Harold CM Holtz BC Klimoski RJ & Marsh SM (2012) Integrating social identity
and the theory of planned behavior: predicting withdrawal from an organizational recruitment process.
Personnel Psychology 65 723-753.
Reynolds, D. H., & Weiner, J. A. (2009). Ch 5. Designing online recruiting and screening websites.
Online recruiting and selection: Innovations in talent acquisition (pp. 69-90). Wiley-Blackwell.
ASSIGNMENT: RECRUITMENT REFLECTION
April 17: Selection system administration, applicant perceptions, utility and marketing selection
systems
Tippins NT (2012). Implementation issues in employee selection testing. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). The
Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press
Kehoe, J, Brown S & Hoffman CC (2012). The life cycle of successful selection programs. In N.
Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press
Cascio WF & Fogli L (2010). The business value of employee selection. In J. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds).
(2010) Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
Gilliland SW & Steiner DD (2012) Applicant reactions to testing and selection In N. Schmitt (Ed.). The
Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press
15
Sturman MC (2012) Employee value: combining utility analysis with strategic human resource
management research to yield strong theory. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Personnel
Assessment and Selection. Oxford Press
Boudreau, JW (2012) “Retooling” evidence-based staffing: extending the validation paradigm using
management mental models. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and
Selection. Oxford Press
Focal article
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on science and practice, 1, 333-342.
Commentaries: (pp. 343-372) READ AT LEAST 3
Kuncel, N. R. Some new (and old) suggestions for improving personnel selection.
Colarelli, S. M., & Thompson, M. Stubborn reliance on human nature in employee selection:
statistical decision aids are evolutionarily novel
Klimoski, R., & Jones, R. G. Intuiting the selection context
Choragwicka, B., & Janta, B. Why is it so hard to apply professional selection methods in
business practice?
Martin, S. L. Managers also over rely on tests.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. The role of perceptions versus reality in managers’ choice of
selection decision aids.
Fisher, C. D. Why don’t they learn?
O’Brien, J. Interviewer resistance to structure.
Mullins, M. E., & Rogers, C. Reliance on intuition and faculty hiring.
Thayer, P. W. That’s not the only problem.
Reply: pp. 373-376
Highhouse, S. Facts are stubborn things.
ASSIGNMENT: ADMINISTRATION REFLECTION
April 24: Globalization/Ethics/Future of staffing/Project review and reflection
Guion p353-374 only
16
Lefkowtiz J & Lowman RL (2010). Ethics of employee selection. In J. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds).
(2010) Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
Ryan, AM & Tippins NT (2010). Global applications of assessment. J.C. Scott & D.H. Reynolds (Eds.)
(2010) Handbook of workplace assessment. SIOP: Jossey-Bass.
Sackett et al. (2010). Perspectives from twenty-two countries on the legal environment for selection. J.
Farr & N. Tippins (Eds). (2010) Handbook of employee selection. Taylor & Francis
ASSIGNMENT: FINAL REPORT
April 30: Semester wrap-up – scheduled time is 7:45-9:45
ASSIGNMENT: FINAL REFLECTION
17
Milestones/assignments due
Jan 11
Jan 16
Jan 23
Jan 30
Feb 6
Feb 20
March 13
March 20
March 27
April 3
April 10
April 17
April 24
April 30
Rankings of site choices
Question ideas for first org meetings
Schedule 1st meeting for this week if possible
Jobs and criteria reflection
Detailed outline of your deliverable
Paper topic
Validation data analysis
Assessment exploration and reflection
Proposal due
Tentative draft of report (optional)
Case reflection
Recruitment reflection
Administration reflection
Presentation practices (as needed) week of April 16 and April 23
Final Report
Final reflections
18