3 ms·
This sounds like somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about and is proud of it
by throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
This sounds like somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about and is proud of it
- jghn 3y agoThis has been studied in the past [1] and the results aren't good [1] One example: 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...
- jldugger 3y agoI mean, Hunter & Schmidt says three really key things: 1. IQ tests work real good. 2. Structured interviews -- which are not IQ tests -- work about as well and strongly correlated. 3. Work sample tests -- which are _definitely not_ IQ tests -- work as well and in ways NOT correlated. Meaning you can combine these two and get a reasonably effective hiring screen.
- jghn 3y agoYes, and even when applying those criteria the results still were far from great. They were at least better than random chance though.
- Paul-Craft 3y agoHow good can the results possibly be when you have ~1 day with someone to assess how they'll be over the next year or 2?
- jghn 3y agoI agree. The person to whom I was replying seemed to be implying that interviews can provide good signal.
- jldugger 3y agoI mean, 70 percent is pretty good for a selection strategy. I wasn't aware H&S had published a followup and now I'm curious if it ever got a peer review, because their table contradicts some earlier work suggesting that structured works better than unstructured. It's also pretty keen to recommend Integrity tests which I think the authors play a role in studying. edit: I guess it's "operational validity" which maybe isn't "percent that did well later"?