[IPAC-List] Seeking Taylor-Russell formulas

Dennis Doverspike dennisdoverspike at gmail.com
Wed Aug 15 16:06:00 EDT 2018 

One last thing - this is from our book



Many consultants have moved to simpler approaches to communicating the
value of tests. Some of the approaches currently used include 1) reporting
results in terms of turnover rather than job performance, and then
converting turnover into dollars; 2) calculating the ratio of number of
hires to number interviewed; and 3) reporting the reduction in the hiring
of weak or poor performers (which can be seen as a return to the ideas of
Taylor and Russell, 1939). The results are then presenting using digital
dashboards, which allow decision makers to monitor the contribution of
their selection systems to organizational performance.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:04 PM Dennis Doverspike <
dennisdoverspike at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here are the classics
>
> Whyte, G., & Latham, G. (1997). The futility of utility analysis
> revisited: When even an expert fails. *Personnel Psychology*, *50*(3),
> 601-610.
> Cronshaw, S. F. (1997). LO! THE STIMULUS SPEAKS: THE INSIDER'S VIEW ON
> WHYTE AND LATHAM'S “THE FUTILITY OF UTILITY ANALYSIS”. *Personnel
> Psychology*, *50*(3), 611-615.
>
> My subjective view is that utility analysis as a way of convincing
> managers of the value of tests was already in trouble. But the Whyte and
> Latham article seemed to slam the door. However, if you ever want to buy me
> a drink at IPAC, I can tell you more.
>
> But then
>
> Carson, K. P., Becker, J. S., & Henderson, J. A. (1998). Is utility really
> futile? A failure to replicate and an extension. *Journal of Applied
> Psychology*, *83*(1), 84.
> Hazer, J. T., & Highhouse, S. (1997). Factors influencing managers'
> reactions to utility analysis: Effects of SDy method, information frame,
> and focal intervention. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, *82*(1), 104.
> Macan, T. H., & Highhouse, S. (1994). Communicating the utility of human
> resource activities: A survey of I/O and HR professionals. *Journal of
> Business and Psychology*, *8*(4), 425-436.
>
> Finally, it is mostly Scott's work, but I would recommend the chapter in
> our book, which is Chapter 8. Our chapter does need updating to include
> dashboard and other newer ways of presenting data:
>
> Highhouse, S., Doverspike, D., & Guion, R. M. (2016). *Essentials of
> personnel assessment and selection, Second edition*.  New York, NY:
> Routledge.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:46 PM Joel Wiesen <
> jwiesen at appliedpersonnelresearch.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
> 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.
>
>

-- 
Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20180815/14d516a4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list