Social Media and Selection

Frequency of Use ---

•18% indicated that they have used social networking websites to screen applicants, while 11% planned on using such sites in the future (survey of over 400 organizations by the Society for Human Resource Management in 2011)

• 45% of employers used social networking sites to investigate job applicants (survey of over 2,600 hiring managers by Harris Interactive for CareerBuilder.com) Consequences? • 35% of organizations in Harris survey said they did not hire candidates due to content available on social networking sites. Most common examples of negative information included

Provocative attireImages of drug or alcohol use, Complaints about previous employers

http://www.siop.org/tip/oct12/05davison.aspx (TIP article of social media & selection)

• Prohibits an employer from forcing prospective or current employees to provide access to their own private account as a condition of employment

• Prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against a prospective or current employee because that employee refuses to provide access to a password-protected account.

Password Protection Act Introduced March of 2012

EEOC Statements on Pre-Employment Inquiries

“Although Title VII does not make pre-employment inquiries concerning race, color, religion or national origin per se violations of the law, the Commission’s responsibility to equal employment opportunity compels it to regard such inquiries with extreme disfavor.”

“ … in the investigation of charges alleging the commission of unlawful employment practices, the Commission will pay particular attention to the use by the party against whom charges have been made of pre-employment inquiries concerning race, religion, color, or national origin, or other inquiries which tend directly or indirectly to disclose such information. The fact that such questions are asked may, unless otherwise explained, constitute evidence of discrimination, and will weigh significantly in the Commission’s decision as to whether or not Title VII has been violated”

Application Blanks

• Content of items (use of job analysis)

• Number of application blanks (one for each position or job category)

• Legal issues

• Image of organization (e.g., format, recruitment issue, perceived fairness)

• Accuracy of data

Applicants overstated length of employment and past salary on application forms (Goldstein, 1971) One serious lie on 25% of application forms and resumes (LoPresto, Mitcham, & Ripley,1986) 40% to 60% candidates overstated their qualifications on resumes (George & Marett, 2005) Most frequent falsifications are job history, job duties, educational record, position title, and previous salary (Broussard and Brannen, 1986)

Increasing Application Form Accuracy

• Inform applicants in verbally and in writing, that the information they furnish will affect their employability

• Inform applicants that the data they provide will be thoroughly checked

• Require applicants to sign a statement certifying the accuracy of the information they provided on the form.

• Include warnings of penalties (not being hired or termination upon discovery) for deliberate falsification

• Include a statement that the application does not create a binding obligation of employment for any specific period of time

Previous research studies examining employment applications by date of study

Study

Results Type of Application & Sample

Wallace & Vodanovich (2002)

Fortune 500 sample = 2.99 inappropriate itemsCustomer Service sample = 5.35 inappropriate items

191 Fortune 500 Finance/Accounting applications109 Customer service applications (e.g., retail, food service)

Wallace, Tye, & Vodanovich (2000)

Average of 4.2 inappropriate items with most problematic: salary, age, driver’s license

42 online state general employment applications

Vodanovich & Lowe (1992)

Average of 7.4 inappropriate items with most problematic: age, convictions, & salary

Retail; 46 categories

Jolly & Frierson (1989)

25% of 20 categories were problematic (e.g., salary)

283 random applications from American Society of Public Administration members; 20 categories

Coady,(1986)

Most problematic: improper use of EEO worksheets

50 state libraries; 25 categories

Lowell & DeLoach, (1982)

Most problematic: military service & age

50 US firms; 17 categories

Burrington, (1982)

Average of 7.7 inappropriate items

50 general state applications; 30 categories

Miller, (1980)

Average of 9.74 inappropriate items

151 of Fortune 500; 72 categories

Note: Adapted from Wallace, Tye, and Vodanovich, 2000.

Frequency of Common Inappropriate Application Blank Questions

Item Not appropriate

Worded Appropriate

Not asked

Past salary 98.9 0 1.1

Minimum salary

72.7 0 27.2

Age 54.5 37.5 8.0

Information about

relatives

50.0 10.2 39.8

Conviction records

43.2 28.4 28.4

Health 40.9 2.3 56.8

Military service

30.7 30.7 38.6

Marital status

27.3 0 72.7

Emergency contact

25.0 43.2 31.8

From: Vodanovich & Lowe (1992); Public Personnel Management

Years of experience and previous salary are the strongest predictors of

starting salary, and starting salary is the greatest predictor of

current salary. --- Mickey Silberman, Jackson Lewis, LLP Industry Liason

Conference (2011)

Years of experience and previous salary are the strongest predictors of

starting salary, and starting salary is the greatest predictor of

current salary. --- Mickey Silberman, Jackson Lewis, LLP Industry Liason

Conference (2011)

Category Inadvisable Legitimate Inadvisable Legitimate

Desired Salary 66.1 15.0 20.8 5.2

Personal E-Mail Address * 49.5 0.0 88.0 2.5

Lowest Acceptable Salary 46.8 19.2 25.0 1.2

Graduation Date 33.9 3.1 54.2 3.5

Work Schedule 33.0 36.2 1.6 0.6

Conviction (w/o disclaimer) 26.6 56.8 3.6 38.2

References 26.6 42.4 3.1 23.6

Gender (w/o EEO disclaimer) 25.7 38.0 20.3 19.5

Race (w/o EEO Disclaimer) 24.8 25.1 15.1 18.9

Driver’s License 22.9 16.2 1.6 0.8

Relatives 21.1 5.1 2.6 0.0

EEO Worksheet 16.5 8.1 14.1 25.6

Handicap (w/o EEO disclaimer) 14.7 3.2 3.6 15.6

Age (w/o EEO disclaimer) 14.7 3.2 3.1 15.8

Language Fluency 11.9 1.5 3.1 0.7

Emergency Contact 7.3 0.0 .5 0.0

Marital Status 3.7 0.8 5.7 0.3

Personal Web Page Address 3.7 0.0 16.7 0.0

National Origin (w/o EEO disclaimer) 2.8 1.8 5.7 23.1

Customer Service Fortune 500

Percentage of most commonly identified inadvisable application blank items by sample

[from Wallace & Vodanovich, 2004) Public Personnel Management]

Effect of Name on Resumes and Interview Rates

Resume Quality

Name type Low High

“White” sounding

name

“Black” sounding

name

50% less chance of being invited for an interview versus “Whites”

with high qualifications

Research on court cases: Most common application blank challenges were based on questions about sex (28%), age (25%), and race (12%). Source: Kethley & Terpstra, 2005 

In 2012, the EEOC issued guidelines on the use of arrest and conviction records for making selection decisions, its first update since 1990.

Refusing to hire those with arrest records is not considered to be justifiable. However, if an individual's behavior underlying an arrest makes the person unfit for a given job, then a decision to not hire may be legitimate.

Conviction records are generally easier to defend from a legal perspective. But, the EEOC stresses the consideration of the following three factors:

1) the nature and severity of the offense, 2) the amount of time that has passed since the conviction (or completion of one's sentence), and3) the nature and type of job sought.

The EEOC suggests not asking about conviction records on application forms. If included, such questions ought to be restricted to convictions “for which exclusion would be job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” See: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm

2012 EEOC Guidance on Arrest and Conviction Records

2004

In general, how frequently does your organization, or an agency hired by your organization check any of the following references for its job candidates?Credit Checks

Always: 19%Sometimes: 24%\ 42%Rarely: 18%  Never: 39%

Survey margin of error: +/- 5%Note: n = 296. Excludes respondents who responded “Don’t know.”Source: SHRM Reference and Background Checking Survey (2004)

2010

Does your organization, or an agency hired by your organization, conduct credit background checks for any job candidates by reviewing the candidates’ consumer reports?

Credit Checks

All job candidates: 13%Select job candidates: 47%No: 40%

Survey margin of error: +/- 5%Note: n = 343. Excludes respondents who responded “Not sure.”Source: SHRM Background Checking Survey (2010)

SHRM Credit Background Check Survey ResultsSHRM Survey Credit Checks

On which categories of job candidates does your organization conduct credit background checks?

SHRM Survey on Use of Credit Background Checks

(2010)

When does your organization, or any agency hired by your organization, initiate credit background checks on job candidates?

SHRM Survey (cont.)

Does your organization allow job candidates, in certain circumstances, the opportunity to explain the results (e.g., high debt, bankruptcy, etc.) of their consumer report that might have an adverse effect on an employment decision?

SHRM Survey (cont.)

SHRM Credit Check Survey Research Summary

• The use of credit background checks in employment decisions has not changed in any discernable way over the past 6 years.

• Most organizations do not conduct credit background checks on all job candidates.

• Organizations conduct credit background checks for those positions where this information is most job-relevant.

• Employers place lower relative importance on credit background checks than other job-related factors in making hiring decisions.

• Employers do not use credit background checks to screen out mass numbers of candidates in the early phases of the application process.

• Credit background check results are seldom used as a definitive hiring criterion.

From: Statement of Michael Aamodt, Ph.D., Principal Consultant, DCI Consulting Group, Inc. EEOC Meeting of October 20, 2010 - Employer Use of Credit History as a Screening Tool

Credit score: A number which provides a “snapshot” over a certain period of time (not shown to employers)Credit report: Generates information about an individual’s debt over a longer time frame than a credit score

Two large studies by the Federal Reserve System in 2003 and Freddie Mac in 2000 concluded that Asians and Whites have higher credit scores than do Hispanics and African Americans

Criterion K N r

Work problems 10 7,464 .149

Discipline 5 5,946 .131

Absenteeism 6 1,678 .211

Performance ratings

3 561 .069

K = number of studies, N = total sample size, r = sample-size weighted uncorrected average correlation

Meta-Analysis

A recent study found credit scores to be predictive of certain work-related outcomes and Big 5 personality scores. The authors found that credit scores were significant and negatively related to supervisor ratings of:

• Task performance • Employee engagement in OCBs

Credit score were also predictive of Big 5 personality scores:

• Greater conscientiousness • Low agreeableness

• But, credit scores were not found to predict supervisor ratings of: • workplace deviance (e.g., theft, aggressiveness)

However, the authors caution the use of credit scores absent data demonstrating their job relatedness for certain jobs and the potential for adverse impact.

Example: Scoring resume data for

sales and accounting

jobs

Characteristics of T&E Evaluations (e.g., Characteristics of T&E Evaluations (e.g., information from application blanks, information from application blanks,

resumes)resumes)

A listing or description of tasks, KSAs, or other A listing or description of tasks, KSAs, or other job-relevant content areasjob-relevant content areas

A means by which applicants can describe, A means by which applicants can describe, indicate, or rate the extent of their training or indicate, or rate the extent of their training or experience with these job content areasexperience with these job content areas

A basis for evaluating or scoring applicants’ A basis for evaluating or scoring applicants’ self-reported training, experience, or educationself-reported training, experience, or education

Some Uses of Training and Experience Some Uses of Training and Experience Evaluations (e.g., gleamed from application Evaluations (e.g., gleamed from application

blank information)blank information)

As the sole basis for deciding if an individual is As the sole basis for deciding if an individual is or is not or is not minimally minimally qualifiedqualified

As a means for rank-ordering individuals from As a means for rank-ordering individuals from high to low based on a T&E scorehigh to low based on a T&E score

As a basis for As a basis for prescreening applicants prescreening applicants prior prior to administering more expensive, time-to administering more expensive, time-consuming predictors (for example, an consuming predictors (for example, an interview)interview)

In In combination with other predictors combination with other predictors used used for making an employment decisionfor making an employment decision

Sample T&E Evaluation

• Holistic JudgmentHolistic Judgment An informal, unstructured approach that an An informal, unstructured approach that an

individual takes when reviewing an application individual takes when reviewing an application or T&E formor T&E form

An individual makes a cursory review of the An individual makes a cursory review of the information and arrives at a broad, general information and arrives at a broad, general judgment of the applicant’s suitabilityjudgment of the applicant’s suitability

Because of its unstandardized nature and Because of its unstandardized nature and unknown reliability and validity, it unknown reliability and validity, it should be should be avoided avoided as an approach to T&E evaluations.as an approach to T&E evaluations.

Decision-Making Methods for T&E Data

• Point MethodPoint Method A pre-established A pre-established rating system rating system for crediting for crediting

applicants’ prior training, education, and applicants’ prior training, education, and experience considered relevant to the jobexperience considered relevant to the job

Points are assigned based on the recentness, type, Points are assigned based on the recentness, type, and amount of and amount of trainingtraining, job , job experienceexperience, and , and education receivededucation received

Analysts using the point method make their Analysts using the point method make their ratings and then ratings and then sum sum the credited points assignedthe credited points assigned

Decision-Making Methods for T&E Data (cont.)

• Grouping MethodGrouping Method

Divides applicants into groups that best Divides applicants into groups that best represent each applicant’s level of represent each applicant’s level of qualificationsqualifications

The number of groups used will depend on the The number of groups used will depend on the particular situation particular situation

High Group: suitable applicants well qualified for the High Group: suitable applicants well qualified for the jobjob

Middle Group: applicants not fitting in either the high Middle Group: applicants not fitting in either the high or low groupor low group

Low Group: applicants with minimum qualifications Low Group: applicants with minimum qualifications but poorly suited because of limited experience or but poorly suited because of limited experience or trainingtraining

Unqualified Group: applicants lacking minimum Unqualified Group: applicants lacking minimum qualificationsqualifications

Decision-Making Methods for T&E Data (cont.)

Decision-Making Methods for T&E Data (cont.)

• Behavioral Consistency MethodBehavioral Consistency Method Applicant descriptions Applicant descriptions of achievements related of achievements related

to key job requirements or competencies are to key job requirements or competencies are formally scored using formally scored using scales scales derived from subject derived from subject matter expertsmatter experts

• Principles of the MethodPrinciples of the Method Behaviors evaluated have been identified by SMEs Behaviors evaluated have been identified by SMEs

as showing differences between superior and as showing differences between superior and minimally acceptable workers.minimally acceptable workers.

Applicants’ past accomplishments can be reliably Applicants’ past accomplishments can be reliably rated by SMEs.rated by SMEs.

Past accomplishments are considered predictive of Past accomplishments are considered predictive of future behaviorsfuture behaviors

Concerns the conduct of research activities including designing a research study, collecting and analyzing data to test specific research hypotheses or answer research questions, and writing up research results in the form of a formal report.

For the behavior Conducting Empirical Research that is defined above, think about your past activities and accomplishments. Then write a narrative description of your activities and accomplishments in the space below. In your description, be sure to answer the following questions:

1. What specifically did you do? When did you do it?2. Give examples of what you did that illustrate how you accomplished the above behavior.3. What percentage of credit do you claim for your work in this area?

Description: During my senior year (2005–2006), I wrote a senior research thesis as a partial requirement for graduation with honors in psychology. I designed a research study to investigate the effects of interviewer race on interviewee performance in a structured interview. I personally designed the research study and conducted it in a metropolitan police department. White and African-American applicants for the job of patrol police officer were randomly assigned to White and African-American interviewers. After conducting an analysis of the patrol police job, a structured interview schedule was developed. The various interviewee-interviewer racial combinations were then compared in terms of their performance in the structured interview. I consider the vast majority of the work (80 percent) to be my own. My major professor accounted for about 20 percent of the work. Her work consisted of helping to obtain site approval for the research, helping to design the study, and reviewing my work products.

Name and Address of an Individual Who Can Verify the Work You Described Above:Name: Dr. Amy PrewettAddress: Department of Psychology

Pascal Univ. State College, IDPhone: 607-555-0821

Sample of Behavior Consistency Model

• Task-Based MethodTask-Based Method Critical job tasks identified from Critical job tasks identified from

comprehensive job analysis serve as the basis comprehensive job analysis serve as the basis for the task-based method.for the task-based method.

Applicants indicate on a list of tasks if they have Applicants indicate on a list of tasks if they have performed the tasks and, if so, how oftenperformed the tasks and, if so, how often

Applicants furnish specific information such that their Applicants furnish specific information such that their self-ratings can be verifiedself-ratings can be verified

• KSA-Based MethodKSA-Based Method Similar to the task-based method with the Similar to the task-based method with the

substitution of KSAs on the questionnaire for substitution of KSAs on the questionnaire for applicant self-ratingsapplicant self-ratings

Decision-Making Methods for T&E Data (cont.)

• ReliabilityReliability T&E evaluations reflect high inter-rater T&E evaluations reflect high inter-rater

reliability estimates (.80s) with the reliability estimates (.80s) with the task-task-based method based method producing the highest producing the highest reliability coefficient and the reliability coefficient and the grouping grouping method producing the lowestmethod producing the lowest

• ValidityValidity Validity of T&E ratings varies with the type of Validity of T&E ratings varies with the type of

procedure usedprocedure used The The behavioral consistency behavioral consistency method method

demonstrated the highest validitydemonstrated the highest validity The The point- and task-based methods point- and task-based methods show useful show useful

validities for applicant groups having validities for applicant groups having low levels low levels of of job experiencejob experience

Psychometrics of T&E Evaluations

• T&E EvaluationsT&E Evaluations Consistently predict important work outcomesConsistently predict important work outcomes Vary significantly in the strength of their Vary significantly in the strength of their

predictive validitypredictive validity Some methods of evaluating experience and training Some methods of evaluating experience and training

exhibit substantial correlations with success (e.g., the exhibit substantial correlations with success (e.g., the “behavioral consistency” method, GPA)“behavioral consistency” method, GPA)

Other methods reflect low validities (e.g., the point Other methods reflect low validities (e.g., the point method)method)

Are particularly valuable for Are particularly valuable for the first three to the first three to five years five years on the jobon the job

Research Findings on T&E Evaluations

• Use T&E evaluations to set specific Use T&E evaluations to set specific minimum minimum job job qualifications (KSAs), rather than using a qualifications (KSAs), rather than using a selection standardselection standard

• Replace holistic methods with competency-based Replace holistic methods with competency-based approaches—behavioral consistency and approaches—behavioral consistency and grouping methodsgrouping methods

• T&E evaluations are subject to the Uniforms T&E evaluations are subject to the Uniforms GuidelinesGuidelines

• Use T&E evaluations Use T&E evaluations only as rough screening only as rough screening procedures procedures for positions where previous for positions where previous experience and training are necessaryexperience and training are necessary

• Forms and procedures for collecting and scoring Forms and procedures for collecting and scoring T&E evaluations should be T&E evaluations should be standardized standardized as as much as possiblemuch as possible

• Verify Verify self-report data, particularly of data given self-report data, particularly of data given by applicants who are going to be offered a jobby applicants who are going to be offered a job

• Base final hiring decisions on other selection Base final hiring decisions on other selection measures when distortion of self-evaluation measures when distortion of self-evaluation information is likely to be a probleminformation is likely to be a problem

T&E Recommendations

Reference Checks(Exceptionally common technique; e.g., 95% usage by organizations)

Basic Purposes:

• Verify information provided by the applicant (check for inconsistencies)

• Uncover unreported or additional information (over ½)

• Predict job performance (pass or fail decisions made (52%)

Types of Information Collected

• Employment dates

• Rehire?

• Salary history

• Absenteeism, tardiness

• Qualifications for a certain type of job or work

Sources of Reference Data

• Supervisor (most common and most useful)

• Personal reference

• Agencies (e.g., credit ratings)

• Public Records (criminal background, driving records, court records, workers compensation)

• Educational background (verification)

Reference Check Methods

In-Person (e.g., interview)

• Costly, time consuming

• Used in jobs that involve the concern for risks (e.g., security, $)

• Can elicit different types of information (differences between in-person and written reference information)

Mail (or e-mail)• Low return rate with use of “snail” mail (e.g., 56 – 64%) (many chose to set up phone reference checks via email)

• Standardized questions, format

• Written record of responses

• Ensure confidentiality of responses (signed statement by applicant)

Telephone Checks(More frequently used than written references)

• Allows follow-up or clarification of answers given

• Less resistance to giving certain types of information can be collected

• Relatively quick process • Important data can be gleaned from various verbal cues (e.g., pauses, hesitations, voice inflections, voice level, intonations)

• Relatively high return rate (especially if time was set earlier)

• Better responsiveness, more interactive nature of the method

• More confidence in the identity of responder

Reference Check Recommendations

• Use of job-related questions (e.g., KSAs from a job analysis)

• Use of multiple reference check forms (job specificity)

• Follow provisions contained in the Uniform Guidelines (e.g., regarding fairness, validity)

• Behaviorally-focused and objective set of questions

• Get written permission for applicants

• Training of interviewers (phone, interview) and recordkeeping

• Ask for additional references if one’s submitted not available

• Verify information that is collected!

Usefulness of Reference Information

• Relatively low validity; relationship to performance measures (e.g., .14, .16)

• Relatively low interrater reliability (e.g., .40, but sometimes from different sources)

Most useful if:

• Data collected from immediate supervisor

• Referee knows applicant well (chance to observe job behavior) and have similar demographic characteristics

• Similarity between the prior job and the one being applied for

An injury to a third party is caused by an An injury to a third party is caused by an employeeemployee

The employee is shown to be unfit for the job The employee is shown to be unfit for the job that he or she holdsthat he or she holds

The employer knew or should have known that The employer knew or should have known that the employee was unfit if a background check or the employee was unfit if a background check or criminal check had been conductedcriminal check had been conducted

The injury to the third party was a The injury to the third party was a foreseeable foreseeable outcome outcome resulting from hiring the unfit resulting from hiring the unfit employeeemployee

The injury is a reasonable and probable outcome The injury is a reasonable and probable outcome of what the employer did or did not do in hiring of what the employer did or did not do in hiring the individualthe individual

Reference Checks --- Legal Issues

Negligent HiringNegligent Hiring

Letters of Recommendation(Mainly used in highly skilled or professional jobs)

Some generic indicators:

• Meaning of certain adjectives (e.g., mental ability – performance; cooperativenss/personality – not related to performance)

• Number of words used or length of letter (longer letter is better)Concerns:

• Pre-selection of referees (often only positive information included)

• Verbal and organizational skill of writer

• Unstructured content

• Omissions

• Time availability

• Subjective scoring (e.g., focus on irrelevant information, status of writer)

Biographical Data (Bio-Data) Process

Developing Biodata Items ---

Task/job-based approach --- To assess safety orientation; “How often have you been a participant in safety meetings?”

Assumes prior experience in the job domain

KSAO approach ---

[Example of assessing a job-related construct such as initiative ---

“On past jobs, how often did you volunteer to work on specific projects?”

More generic but not explicitly related to job duties

•

• Relevance of the item to the intended construct or job/task relevance of the item

• Potential overlap with other constructs

• Social desirability and/or faking potential

• Possible for bias against protected groups

• Privacy concerns

Item Screening

HistoricalHow old were you when you got your first

job?

HypotheticalWhat job do you think you’ll have in 10

years?

ExternalDid you ever get fired from a job?

InternalWhat is your attitude towards friends who smoke

marijuana?

ObjectiveHow many hours did you study for your math

tests?

SubjectiveWould you describe yourself as shy?

First-handHow punctual are you about coming to work?

Second-handHow would your teachers describe your

punctuality?

DiscreteAt what age did you receive your driver’s license?

SummativeHow many hours do you study during an average

week?

VerifiableWhat was your GPA in college?

Non-VerifiableHow many fresh vegetables do you eat daily?

ControllableHow many times did you drop classes in college?

Non-controllableHow many siblings do you have?

Classification of Biographical Items

Best results if items are: Historical, objective, discrete, job relevant, and external

1. Yes-No Response:

Are you satisfied with your life?

a. Yes

b. No

2. Continuum, Single-Choice Response:

About how many fiction books have you read in the past year?

a. None

b. 1 or 2

c. 3 or 4

d. 5 or 6

e. More than 6

3. Noncontinuum, Single-Choice Response:

Which one of the following would you most prefer to do in your leisure time?

a. Read a book

b. Work crossword puzzles

c. Attend a party

d. Play golf, tennis, or softball

e. Repair a broken appliance or make minor home repairs

4. Noncontinuum, Multiple-Choice Response:

Check each of the following activities you had participated in by the time you were 18.

a. Shot a rifle

b. Driven a car

c. Worked a full-time job

d. Traveled alone more than 500 miles from home

e. Repaired an electrical appliance

5. Continuum, Plus Escape Option:

When you were a teenager, how often did your father help you with your schoolwork?

a. Very often

b. Often

c. Sometimes

d. Seldom

e. Never

f. Father was not at home

6. Noncontinuum, Plus Escape Option:

In what branch of the military did you serve?

a. Army

b. Air Force

c. Navy

d. Marines

e. Never served in the military

7. Common Stem, Multiple Continuum: In the last 5 years, how much have you enjoyed each of the following? (Use the rating scale of 1 to 4: (1) Very Much, (2) Some, (3) Very little, (4) Not at all

a. Reading books

b. Watching TV

c. Working at your job

d. Traveling

e. Outdoor recreation

1. Verifiable: Did you graduate from college?

2. Historical:How many jobs have you held in the past five years?

3. Actual Behavior:Have you ever repaired a broken radio?

4. Memory:How would you describe your life at home while growing up?

5. Factual:How many hours do you spend at work in a typical week?

6. Specific:While growing up, did you collect coins?

7. Response:Which of the following hobbies do you enjoy?

8. External Event:When you were a teenager, how much time did your father spend with you?

Unverifiable:How much did you enjoy high school?Futuristic:What job would you like to hold five years from now?

Hypothetical Behavior:If you had your choice, what job would you like to hold now?Conjecture:If you were to go through college again, what would you choose as a major?Interpretive:If you could choose your supervisor, what characteristic would you want him or her to have?General:While growing up, what activities did you enjoy most?Response Tendency:When you have a problem at work, to whom do you turn for assistance?Internal Event:Which best describes the feelings you had when you last worked with a computer?

Classification of Biographical Items (cont.)

Biodata Scoring

Empirical Keying Approach (correlation between items and a criterion)

ItemsItems

High

Low

Performance Groups (e.g., median split,

upper vs. lower thirds)

Issues:

• Validity of the criterion measure• Contamination/bias in criterion measure• Items (and their weights) are specific to the criterion

Rational Scoring Approach (Assessment of how well items

Summary of Bio-Data Validity Studies

• Reliability: .60 to .80 across several studies [higher for more verifiable items]

• Validity: Many validity coefficients above .30

• Accuracy: Some distortions exist. Mainly on unverifiable items (e.g., interests, preferences) and more if desirability of answers is apparent (e.g., faking can occur)

Bio-Data (cont)

Bio-Data [Why does it work?]

• Use of life history items e.g., personal background, life experiences, interests (past behavior is best predictor of future behavior)

• Only relevant (empirically significant) items/constructs are selected

• Correlation between BIB content and criterion

• Wide range of information (lots of different questions and types)

• Situational specificity

• Need large sample to construct properly

• Assumption of a “correct” life history

• Pure empirical approach (e.g., versus content approach)

• Legal issues (e.g., adverse impact, validity, reliability)

Some Bio-Data Issues

Eliminate an item from the Bio-data inventory if the item:

• Exhibits little response variance

• Has a skewed response distribution

• Is correlated with protected-group characteristics such as ethnicity

• Has no correlation with other items thought to be measuring the same life history construct

• Has no correlation with the criterion (no item validity)