[IPAC-List] Training and Experience Evaluations--the evidence

Thu May 18 09:37:02 EDT 2017

Richard,
Yes, precisely. Wayne and I are in the process of writing the 8th edition, which will be available in 2018. So, the paragraphs below reflect the updates.

Regards,

--Herman.

Herman Aguinis, Ph.D.

Avram Tucker Distinguished Scholar and Professor of Management

George Washington University School of Business

2201 G Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20052

http://hermanaguinis.com/ 

From: richard carter [mailto:rickcarter1957 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:34 AM
To: haguinis at gwu.edu; IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Training and Experience Evaluations--the evidence

How does a book published in 2011 cite a journal article in 2016?  Do y'all have a new edition in the works?  just wondering . . 

Rick Carter

New Orleans Civil Service (mostly retired) 

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 7:55 AM, Herman Aguinis <haguinis at email.gwu.edu <mailto:haguinis at email.gwu.edu> > wrote:

Adele,

The following text is from Chapter 12 in Cascio, W. F, and Aguinis H. (2011). Applied psychology in human resource management <https://www.pearsonhighered.com/program/Cascio-Applied-Psychology-in-Human-Resource-Management-7th-Edition/PGM248374.html> , 7th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Evaluating job experience is not as easy as one may think because experience includes both qualitative and quantitative components that interact and accrue over time (Aguinis, O’Boyle, Gonzalez-Mulé, & Joo, 2016); hence, work experience is multidimensional and temporally dynamic (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). However, using experience as a predictor of future performance can pay off. Specifically, a study including more than 800 U.S. Air Force enlisted personnel indicated that ability and experience seem to have linear and noninteractive effects (Lance & Bennett, 2000). Another study that also used military personnel showed that work experience items predict performance above and beyond cognitive abilities and personality (Jerry & Borman, 2002). These findings explain why the results of a survey of more than 200 staffing professionals of the National Association of Colleges and Employers revealed that experienced hires were evaluated more highly than new graduates on most characteristics (Rynes, Orlitzky, & Bretz, 1997).

An empirical comparison of four methods for evaluating work experience indicated that the “behavioral consistency” method showed the highest mean validity (.45) (McDaniel, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1988). This method requires applicants to describe their major achievements in several job-related areas. These areas are behavioral dimensions rated by supervisors as showing maximal differences between superior and minimally acceptable performers. The applicants’ achievement statements are then evaluated using anchored rating scales. The anchors are achievement descriptors whose values along a behavioral dimension have been determined reliably by subject matter experts.

A similar approach to the evaluation of training and experience, one most appropriate for selecting professionals, is the accomplishment record (AR) method (Hough, 1984). A comment frequently heard from professionals is “My record speaks for itself.” The AR is an objective method for evaluating those records. It is a type of biodata/maximum performance/self-report instrument that appears to tap a component of an individual’s history that is not measured by typical biographical inventories. It correlates essentially zero with aptitude test scores, honors, grades, and prior activities and interests.

Development of the AR begins with the collection of critical incidents to identify important dimensions of job performance. Then rating principles and scales are developed for rating an individual’s set of job-relevant achievements. The method yields (1) complete definitions of the important dimensions of the job, (2) summary principles that highlight key characteristics to look for when determining the level of achievement demonstrated by an accomplishment, (3) actual examples of accomplishments that job experts agree represent various levels of achievement, and (4) numerical equivalents that allow the accomplishments to be translated into quantitative indexes of achievement. When the AR was applied in a sample of 329 attorneys, the reliability of the overall performance ratings was a respectable .82, and the AR demonstrated a validity of .25. Moreover, the method appears to be fair for females, minorities, and white males.

I hope this helps!

All the best,

--Herman.

Herman Aguinis, Ph.D.

Avram Tucker Distinguished Scholar and Professor of Management

George Washington University School of Business

2201 G Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20052

http://hermanaguinis.com/ 

From: IPAC-List [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org <mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org> ] On Behalf Of Demooy, Adele
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 1:36 PM
To: 'IPAC-List at ipacweb.org' <IPAC-List at ipacweb.org <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org> >
Subject: [IPAC-List] Training and Experience Evaluations

We do not have a lot of experience using training and experience evaluations at the District but would like to consider using a T&E for the selection process for senior level engineers (PEs) in combination with a structured oral test.  If anyone has a sample T&E they could share with me, I would be most appreciative.

Look forward to seeing you in Birmingham.

Adele De Mooy

Employment Manager

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

111 E. Erie

Chicago, IL 60660

(312) 751-5172

_______________________________________________________
IPAC-List
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org> 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20170518/19515c7f/attachment-0001.html>