Premium
LinkedIn as a new selection method: Psychometric properties and assessment approach
Author(s) -
Roulin Nicolas,
Levashina Julia
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
personnel psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.076
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1744-6570
pISSN - 0031-5826
DOI - 10.1111/peps.12296
Subject(s) - psychology , conscientiousness , extraversion and introversion , big five personality traits , personality , selection (genetic algorithm) , consistency (knowledge bases) , social psychology , applied psychology , reliability (semiconductor) , personnel selection , cognition , statistics , artificial intelligence , computer science , power (physics) , physics , mathematics , quantum mechanics , neuroscience
Various surveys suggest LinkedIn is used as a screening and selection tool by many hiring managers. Despite this widespread use, fairly little is known about whether LinkedIn meets established selection criteria, such as reliability, validity, and legality (i.e., no adverse impact). We examine the properties of LinkedIn‐based assessments in two studies. Study 1 shows that raters reach acceptable levels of consistency in their assessments of applicant skills, personality, and cognitive ability. Initial ratings also correlate with subsequent ratings done 1‐year later (i.e., demonstrating temporal stability), with slightly higher correlations when profile updates are taken into account. Initial LinkedIn‐based ratings correlate with self‐reports for more visible skills (leadership, communication, and planning) and personality traits (Extraversion), and for cognitive ability. LinkedIn‐based hiring recommendations are positively associated with indicators of career success. Potential adverse impact is also limited. Profiles that are longer, include a picture, and have more connections are rated more positively. Some of those features are valid cues to applicants’ characteristics (e.g., applicants high on Conscientiousness have longer profiles). In Study 2, we show that an itemized LinkedIn assessment is more effective than a global assessment. Implications of these findings for selection and future research are discussed.