Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
HR T1 - Assessment Centers (Arthur (Steps in building an AC…
HR T1 - Assessment Centers
Arthur
Overview of AC process
Sorting and organizing observations; generation of initial dimension-level scores for the exercise
Assessors proceed to generateparticipants dimension-level scored
Assessors observe and record behaviors
Providing feedback to the participants
Participants go through exercises
AC =on one hand it reflects one's potential; it is a valid predictor. On the other hand we have doubts whether it measures what is supposed to measure
Steps in building an AC
Select/develop exercises to measure dimensions
use max 4-6 dimensions, not (too) related with each other
focus on representing the dimensions rather than workplace
Train assessors and administrators
Assessors = should by psychologists = they are better at detecting behaviors
observe max 2 people
each game- different observation targets
Identify behavioral dimensions related to the KSAO's
Pilot the AC
Identify KSAO's / construct major underlying work ehaviors
Refine as warranted
Determine major wok behavior
Implement the AC
Job analysis
SCORING:
within exercises
scored after completing the entire batter of tests
across exercises
score after each game
Highouse
beliefs
Variance i success of prediction
20% Technical
70% Unpredictable
10% Pschological
it is believeed that variance in measurement is due to bad measurement - in fact it is just our lack of knowledge
unstructured interview is the most popular measurement method, and it sucks = believe in horse-sense
there is belief that subjective measures>objective measures
2 arguments in favor: Holisticity and Broken-leg problem
myth of selection expertise - in fact there is no such effect
Expert ratings
lack insight into how they arrive at their decisions
poor inter judge agreement
rely on few pieces of information
more confident when irrelevant info is introduced
Ryan
Why HR practitioners have gaps in their knowledge?
Pressure form the companies to bring new candidates ASAP
Some stakeholder perceptions of methods is not aligned with practitioners
research is abstract and is lacking context(hard to apply)
HR professionals find legal requirements confusing
research not accessible and full of jargon
Methods of selection (in bold- most predictive). For racial biases check the paper (AND FOKIN DO IT)
Conscientiousness
Biographical info
Job knowledge tests
Sitiational judgment
WORK SAMPLES
Integrity test
Unstructures Interviews
AC
STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
Reference checks
COGNITIVE TESTS
Referrals + Cognitive tests = best predictive combo BUT huge diversity issues
people from referrals 50% less likely to turnover relative to people from job ads
you can use different ways of presenting info (f.e. video) but then you affect content validity
THERE IS A GREAT LIST OF HR PRACTICES IN THE PAPER< READ IT
lowest bias goes for integrity tests and Personality (Conscientiousness)
you can lower the bias by reducing the verbalization = for example instead of providing stories on the paper in Situational Judgment tests, provide a short video
AC's vary in this matter, results vary from 0 to 0.5 in discrimination index (where 1 would be cognitive tests)
lowest bias = personality tests = conscientiousness and integrity. (with exception for biographical data where there is apparently stron white-black bias
Medium bias = work samples, interview, job knowledge, situational judgment, AC, work samples
Strong bias = cognitive tests and other similar. can be reduced when assessed non-verbally (but this is also a complicated issue)
You can also lower the adverse impact by introducing low-adverse-impact measurements at the beginning of the selection, and more adverse at the end of the selection
Best ways to reduce Adverse Impact of selection tools
Not using cognitive ability tests
Using tests focusing on citizenship behaviors/Teamwork in addition to task performance
Target recruitment ads at qualified minority groups
Use the tools with little adverse impact at the beginning and more adverse at the end of selection procedure
Ployhart
Situational judgment tests; present work-related situations and then ask how you should behave - usually multidimensional tests
types
"should do"
maximum performance test = ability and knowledge
"would do"
typical performance test
Development of SJT's
Scoring
Either choose best or put them on continuum from best to worst
Generate Situations
critical incidents at work / context specific situations
theory-driven situations
Response Option generation
best if generated by job experts
4-6 responses per situation
Other Issues:
stem complexity = the more complex the situation the more racial bias, becasue of verba comprehension
branching stems
Stem fidelity=realism. the higher the better (situations can be put on videos)
would vs should (both question formats correlate with different constructs)
would do = personality constructs
should do= cognitive ability and knowledge = this one is more valid
Racial differences for SIT are as big as for Cognitive tests
SIT = moderate predictive ability