4 ms·
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 an
by 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 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"?