Personnel selection
In this respect, selected prospects are separated from rejected applicants with the intention of choosing the person who will be the most successful and make the most valuable contributions to the organization.
US law also recognizes bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs), which are requirements for a job which would be considered discriminatory if not necessary – such as only employing men as wardens of maximum-security male prisons, enforcing a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots, a religious college only employing professors of its religion to teach its theology, or a modeling agency only hiring women to model women's clothing.
[1] Personnel selection systems employ evidence-based practices to determine the most qualified candidates and involve both the newly hired and those individuals who can be promoted from within the organization.
[1] In this respect, selection of personnel has "validity" if an unmistakable relationship can be shown between the system itself and the employment for which the people are ultimately being chosen for.
[1] The procedure of personnel selection includes gathering data about the potential candidates with the end goal of deciding suitability and sustainability for the employment in that particular job.
[1] Chinese civil servant exams, established in AD 605, may be the first documented "modern" selection tests, and have influenced subsequent examination systems.
In the United States of America, members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conduct much of the research on selection.
While psychological interviews include questions intended to assess the interviewee's personality traits such as their work ethic, dependability, honesty etc.
Hence they can be used across organizations and jobs and have been shown to produce large economic gains for companies that use them (Gatewood & Feild, 1998; Heneman et al., 2000).
The legal issues with cognitive ability testing were amplified by the supreme court's ruling in the famous 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power case.
The courts have held narrow interpretations of business necessity that require companies to show that no other acceptable selection alternative exists (Sovereign, 1999).
But due to the legal challenges associated with cognitive ability, interest in personality instruments has recently been revived (Schmidt, Ones, & Hunter, 1992).
Recent research studies prove this assumption to be false, by showing that the addition of a predictor producing smaller group differences (i.e., personality test) to a predictor producing higher group differences (i.e., cognitive ability test) does not reduce the potential for adverse impact to the degree that is often expected (Bobko, Roth, & Potosky, 1999; Schmitt, Rogers, Chan, Sheppard, & Jennings, 1997).
In summary, cognitive ability testing by itself has been shown to have high levels of validity, but comes with issues relating to adverse impact.
Finally, the base rate is defined by the percentage of employees thought to be performing their jobs satisfactorily following measurement.
Tests designed to determine an individual's aptitude for a particular position, company or industry may be referred to as personnel assessment tools.
[1][6] The criterion cutoff is the point separating successful and unsuccessful performers according to a standard set by the hiring organization.
True positives are applied those thought to succeed on the job as a result of having passed the selection test and who have, in fact, performed satisfactorily.
Banding allows employers to ignore test scores altogether by using random selection, and many have criticized the technique for this reason.
Finally, content analyses of open-ended question responses indicated selection decisions were highly sensitive to candidates with low expression of voice and helping behaviors.
