I can't find a link to the original 1998 paper, but the authors have an updated paper here: https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20Oh%20val

I can't find a link to the original 1998 paper, but the authors have an updated paper here: https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20Oh%20validity%20and%20util%20100%20yrs%20of%20research%20Wk%20PPR%202016.pdf https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20... In the updated paper, work sample tests do not come up as important as they were in the original paper: It appears that almost all of the validity of work sample tests is captured by GMA measures, because the incremental validity is essentially zero. But work sample tests are a great mechanism when GMA cannot be used for legal or other reasons. The paper concludes with: The research evidence summarized in this article shows that different methods and combinations of methods have very different validities for predicting future job performance. Some, such as person-job fit, person- organization fit, and amount of education, have low validity. Others, such as graphology, have essentially no validity; they are equivalent to hiring randomly. Still others, such as GMA tests and integrity tests, have high validity. Of the combinations of predictors examined, two stand out as being both practical to use for most hiring and as having high composite validity: the combination of a GMA test and an integrity test (composite validity of .78); and the combination of a GMA test and a structured interview (composite validity of .76).