Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-55759 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-04T18:26:28.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

External practitioner perspectives on validating selection tools against performance ratings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2024

Chase A. Winterberg Open the ORCID record for Chase A. Winterberg [Opens in a new window]  and
Greg Haudek
Chase A. Winterberg*
Affiliation:
Data Science, Hogan Assessments, Tulsa, OK, USA
Greg Haudek
Affiliation:
Data Science, Hogan Assessments, Tulsa, OK, USA
*
Corresponding author: Chase A. Winterberg; Email: cwinterberg@hoganassessments.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , First View , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Foster, J. F., Steel, P., Harms, P., O’Neil, T., & Wood, D. (2024). Selection tests work better than we think they do, and have for years. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17, XXX–XXX.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2023). Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16, 283–300.Google Scholar
Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 956–970.Google ScholarPubMed