4 ms·

This 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%20

• jldugger 3y ago
  I 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
      How 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 ago
        I agree. The person to whom I was replying seemed to be implying that interviews can provide good signal.
        • jldugger 3y ago
          I 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"?