[IPAC-List] Seeking Taylor-Russell formulas
Winfred Arthur, Jr.
w-arthur at tamu.edu
Wed Aug 15 16:24:47 EDT 2018
i addition to Dennis' list, if you are not familiar w/ it, here is one
"pro" paper that i really like:
Kim, Y., & Ployhart, R. E. (2013). The effects of staffing and training
on firm productivity and profit growth before, during, and after the
great recession. /Journal of Applied Psychology, 99,/ 361-389.
and another general/review piece that is quite informative:
Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2011). Utility of selection systems:
Supply-chain analysis applied to staffing decisions. In S. Zedeck
(Ed.), /APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Volume
2, Selecting and developing members for the organization/ (pp. 303-341).
Washington, DC: APA.
- winfred
On 8/15/2018 3:06 PM, Dennis Doverspike wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_joelwiesen&d=DwMFaQ&c=ODFT-G5SujMiGrKuoJJjVg&r=QPXvfD7OlbB-bn0RogVh0PVRDyppaZvhXQLzH1IbdZ8&m=kyo7P2E63YqjTiFPLiirMTcPGbek64KYBE5gC7-HwrU&s=ZAgmwUS9VsdQLQhWukd7ulXpkNnU4cg5ejFt9a-9f8U&e=>
> (617) 244-8859
> http://appliedpersonnelresearch.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__appliedpersonnelresearch.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=ODFT-G5SujMiGrKuoJJjVg&r=QPXvfD7OlbB-bn0RogVh0PVRDyppaZvhXQLzH1IbdZ8&m=kyo7P2E63YqjTiFPLiirMTcPGbek64KYBE5gC7-HwrU&s=oruEV8JzjElnJK5Gg8jjGwc3SfhWgKHyUn0jpIey2WY&e=>
>
>
>
>
> 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>
> > <mailto: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>
> <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>>
> > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__pairlist9.pair.net_mailman_listinfo_ipac-2Dlist&d=DwMFaQ&c=ODFT-G5SujMiGrKuoJJjVg&r=QPXvfD7OlbB-bn0RogVh0PVRDyppaZvhXQLzH1IbdZ8&m=kyo7P2E63YqjTiFPLiirMTcPGbek64KYBE5gC7-HwrU&s=ZuRqCo9cmzVLYGyyuaiBmzn1t_bIQ0P_am6pkXAH7rw&e=>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis Doverspike, PhD., ABPP
> > dennisdoverspike at gmail.com
> <mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com>
> <mailto: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 <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>
> > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__pairlist9.pair.net_mailman_listinfo_ipac-2Dlist&d=DwMFaQ&c=ODFT-G5SujMiGrKuoJJjVg&r=QPXvfD7OlbB-bn0RogVh0PVRDyppaZvhXQLzH1IbdZ8&m=kyo7P2E63YqjTiFPLiirMTcPGbek64KYBE5gC7-HwrU&s=ZuRqCo9cmzVLYGyyuaiBmzn1t_bIQ0P_am6pkXAH7rw&e=>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist9.pair.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20180815/2003b2fe/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the IPAC-List
mailing list