Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:29:34.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Of Babies and Bathwater: Don't Throw the Measure Out With the Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

David J. Woehr  and
Sylvia G. Roch
David J. Woehr*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, University of North Carolina Charlotte
Sylvia G. Roch
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David J. Woehr, Department of Management, University of North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001. E-mail: dwoehr@uncc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Adler et al. (2016) provide a discussion of the pros and cons surrounding the issue of “Getting Rid of Performance Ratings.” Yet neither the pro nor the con side of the debate appears to fully consider the central role of performance ratings outside the realm of performance management.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 357 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

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

Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., & Pulakos, E. D. (2016). Getting rid of performance ratings: Genius or folly? A debate. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9 (2), 219–252.Google Scholar
Arthur, W., Day, E. A., McNelly, T. L., & Edens, P. S. (2003). A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 56, 125–154.Google Scholar
Arthur, W., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 435–442.Google Scholar
Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917–1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836–874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.836Google Scholar
Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 387–409.Google Scholar
Blum, M., & Naylor, J. (1968). Industrial psychology. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gaugler, B. B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thornton, G. C., & Bentson, C. (1987). Meta-analysis of assessment center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 493–511.Google Scholar
Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, K. J. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. E. (1983). Test validation for 12,000 jobs: An application of job classification and validity generalization analysis to the general aptitude test battery. Washington, DC: Department of Labor, Employment Services.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–95.Google Scholar
Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50, 905–925.Google Scholar
Kraiger, K. (2002). Decision-based evaluation. In Kraiger, K. (Ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development: State of the art lessons for practice (pp. 331–375). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 730–740.Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews—A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599–616.Google Scholar
McKay, P. F., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). A reexamination of Black–White mean differences in work performance: More data, more moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 538–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothstein, H. R., Schmidt, F. L., Erwin, F. W., Owens, W. A., & Sparks, C. P. (1990). Biographical data in employment selection: Can validities be made generalizable. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). International validity generalization of GMA and cognitive ability: A European community meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 56, 537–605.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Rader, M. (1999). Exploring the boundary conditions for interview validity: Meta-analytic validity findings for a new interview type. Personnel Psychology, 52, 445–464.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D., & Taylor, H. (2009). Transfer of management training from alternative perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 104–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorndike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar