No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
External practitioner perspectives on validating selection tools against performance ratings
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 August 2024
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.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS1754942624000178/resource/name/firstPage-pdf-S1754942624000178a.jpg)
- Type
- Commentaries
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
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