Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T22:59:05.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining Worker Underrepresentation in Selection Research: The Domain Matters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Allen H. Huffcutt  and
Satoris S. Culbertson
Allen H. Huffcutt*
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Bradley University
Satoris S. Culbertson
Affiliation:
College of Business Administration, Kansas State University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Allen H. Huffcutt, Psychology Department, Bradley University, 73 Bradley Hall, Peoria, IL 61625. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We concur with Bergman and Jean (2016) that worker samples tend to be underrepresented in organizational research, which could have deleterious effects on the conclusions and practices derived from this research. However, we argue that the effects of underrepresentation could vary considerably by organizational domain (e.g., selection vs. leadership vs. satisfaction). Our focus with this commentary is to address its effects on organizational selection, particularly with employment interviews, including issues such as criterion-related validity, prevalence of student samples, and the four criteria outlined by the focal authors (overlooked phenomena, differences in construct meaning, worker status, and human capital patterns).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 167 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bergman, M. E., & Jean, V. A. (2016). Where have all the “workers” gone? A critical analysis of the unrepresentativeness of our samples relative to the labor market in the industrial–organizational psychology literature. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9, 84–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delery, J. E. Wright, P. M., McArthur, K., & Anderson, C. D. (1994). Cognitive ability tests and the situational interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2, 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Klehe, U. C. (2004). The impact of job complexity and study design on situational and behavior description interview validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 262–273.Google Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., Culbertson, S. S., & Weyhrauch, W. (2014). Moving forward indirectly: Reanalyzing the validity of employment interviews with indirect range restriction methodology. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffcutt, A., Roth, P., & McDaniel, M. (1996). A meta-analytic investigation of cognitive ability in employment interview evaluations: Moderating characteristics and implications for incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 459–473.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 594–612.Google Scholar
Kluemper, D. H., McLarty, B. D., Bishop, T. R., & Sen, A. (2015). Interviewee selection test and evaluator assessments of general mental ability, emotional intelligence and extraversion: Relationships with structured behavioral and situational interview performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 543–563.Google Scholar
Little, J. P., Schoenfelt, E. L., & Brown, R. D. (2000, April). The situational versus patterned behavior description interview for predicting customer service performance. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J., Brownlee, A. L., & Schmit, M. J. (2008). Effects of personality characteristics on knowledge, skill, and performance in servicing retail customers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 272–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, P. L., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Huffcutt, A. I., Eidson, C. E. Jr., & Schmitt, M. J. (2005). Personality saturation in structured interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 261–273.Google Scholar