Premium
Reasons for Being Selective When Choosing Personnel Selection Procedures
Author(s) -
König Cornelius J.,
Klehe UteChristine,
Berchtold Matthias,
Kleinmann Martin
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
international journal of selection and assessment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.812
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1468-2389
pISSN - 0965-075X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00485.x
Subject(s) - psychology , predictive validity , personnel selection , promotion (chess) , selection (genetic algorithm) , incremental validity , predictive power , odds , social psychology , logistic regression , personality , test (biology) , applied psychology , clinical psychology , test validity , statistics , psychometrics , computer science , philosophy , mathematics , paleontology , epistemology , artificial intelligence , politics , political science , law , biology
The scientist–practitioner gap in personnel selection is large. Thus, it is important to gain a better understanding of the reasons that make organizations use or not use certain selection procedures. Based on institutional theory, we predicted that six variables should determine the use of selection procedures: the procedures' diffusion in the field, legal problems associated with the procedures, applicant reactions to the procedures, their usefulness for organizational self‐promotion, their predictive validity, and the costs involved. To test these predictions, 506 HR professionals from the German‐speaking part of Switzerland filled out an online survey on the selection procedures used in their organizations. Respondents also evaluated five procedures (semi‐structured interviews, ability tests, personality tests, assessment centers, and graphology) on the six predictor variables. Multilevel logistic regression was used to analyze the data. The results revealed that the highest odd ratios belonged to the factors applicant reactions, costs, and diffusion. Lower (but significant) odds ratios belonged to the factors predictive validity, organizational self‐promotion, and perceived legality.