[IPAC-List] Seeking Taylor-Russell formulas

[Joel Wiesen]

Hi Dennis,

Can you point us towards some publications on this:

< the side that argued that utility information did more harm than good 
turned out to be the winner

Thanks.

Joel


Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director
Applied Personnel Research
62 Candlewood Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583-6040
http://www.linkedin.com/in/joelwiesen
(617) 244-8859
http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com




Note: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Please do not forward any contents without permission. If you have received this message in error please destroy all copies, completely remove it from your computer, and notify the sender. Thank you.

On 8/15/18 3:37 PM, Dennis Doverspike wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Great to hear from our "International" branch. In your retirement, it 
> would be great to see you reach out to your Canadian assessment 
> colleagues and encourage them to join IPAC.
>
> As for your point, classic estimates of utility are easily modified to 
> include discussion of tenure, retention, and costs. However, ever 
> since in a battle between two of your countrymen, the side that argued 
> that utility information did more harm than good turned out to be the 
> winner, there seems to have been a decrease in attention in both 
> research and practice to the "classic" notion of utility. This seems 
> to have been replaced by the expanded views offered by experts such as 
> Boudreau, as well as the move toward dashboarding results. An 
> impression I have is that at least in the private sector, more 
> attention is paid to turnover, for which the costs are more easily 
> quantified, and other performance metrics, than is paid to utility in 
> the Taylor-Brogden-Cronbach-Schmidt tradition. I find Marc Wenzel of 
> Shaker to be an excellent resource on what the private sector is 
> actually concerned with when evaluating the usefulness of tests.
>
> That does not mean that Taylor and Russell is still not useful. For 
> example, I find it very useful in trying to explain and in considering 
> the value of various approaches to setting cutoffs. Although very 
> useful and well accepted, the classic Angoff approach can be easily 
> shown to be very limited when considered in a Taylor-Russell framework.
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:26 PM <mhammer at 295.ca 
> <mailto:mhammer at 295.ca>> wrote:
>
>     Utility analysis is relevant for that period where those who
>     *used* to be
>     candidates are now incumbents.  That is not to dismiss its
>     relevance or
>     importance, but it tends to ignore retention as a critical aspect of
>     evaluating test-utility.  The predictive validity and utility of
>     tests are
>     for identifying candidates who will accept your offer AND stick
>     around,
>     such that the utility and added value can be realized.
>
>     So, without wishing to derail or distract from the thread, I was
>     curious
>     as to whether there is research or reports that attempt to integrate
>     validity/utility with prediction of retention.  I ask this with the
>     understanding that probability of non-retirement voluntary
>     departure often
>     decreases with tenure, just as evidence of utility *increases* with
>     tenure.
>
>     Grosso modo, the ideal is for any pre-employment testing to
>     identify not
>     only those who will add value for the employer, but do so for a period
>     long enough to justify that investment in assessment and selection.
>
>     Feel free to ignore.
>
>     Mark Hammer
>     Ottawa
>     (now retired)
>
>     _______________________________________________________
>     IPAC-List
>     IPAC-List at ipacweb.org <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>
>     https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
> dennisdoverspike at gmail.com <mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com>
>
> The information is intended only for the person or entity to which it 
> is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged and/or a work 
> product for the sole use of the intended recipient. No confidentiality 
> or privilege is waived or lost by any errant transmission. If you 
> receive this message in error, please destroy all copies of it and 
> notify the sender. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. 
> In the case of E-mail or electronic transmission, immediately delete 
> it and all copies of it from your system and notify the sender. E-mail 
> and fax transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free 
> as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
> arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> IPAC-List
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list