Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T23:35:42.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

We Found Them! The Practitioner Role in Expanding the Generalizability of Findings in I-O Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Adam S. Beatty  and
Philip T. Walmsley
Adam S. Beatty*
Affiliation:
Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, Virginia
Philip T. Walmsley
Affiliation:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adam S. Beatty, Human Resources Research Organization, 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 700, Alexandria, VA 22314-1591. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of our commentary is to expand the conversation started by the focal article (Bergman & Jean, 2016) by providing a practitioner perspective, especially focusing on practitioners who work in a government or military context. We believe this perspective is valuable because (a) interventions and research projects involving nonprofessional/nonmanagement workers are already regularly being conducted in this context; (b) there are likely to be other causes of a lack of focus on broader populations of workers in this context than those highlighted by the focal article, some of which may differ between practitioners and academics; and (c) we believe practitioners in this context have much to contribute to solving the potential problems that the focal article highlights.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 181 - 187
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.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., & Knapp, D. J. (Eds.). (2001). Exploring the limits in personnel selection and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). The milieu of managerial work: An integrative framework linking work context to role requirements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 972–988.Google Scholar
Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. K. (1989). Fairness in employment testing. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–88.Google Scholar
Ingerick, M., & Rumsey, M. G. (2014). Taking the measure of work interests: Past, present, and future. Military Psychology, 26 (3), 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaPolice, C. C., Carter, G. W., & Johnson, J. W. (2008). Linking O*NET descriptors to occupational literacy requirements using job component validation. Personnel Psychology, 61 (2), 405–441.Google Scholar
National Research Council, Committee on Measuring Human Capabilities, & Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences. (2015). Measuring human capabilities: An agenda for basic research on the assessment of individual and group performance potential for military accession. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., & Walmsley, P. T. (2014). Which personality attributes are most important in the workplace? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9 (5), 538–551.Google Scholar
Shin, S. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2007). What you do depends on where you are: Understanding how domestic and expatriate work requirements depend upon the cultural context. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (1), 64–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Drasgow, F., Nye, C. D., White, L. A., Heffner, T., & Farmer, W. L. (2014). From ABLE to TAPAS: A new generation of personality tests to support military selection and classification decisions. Military Psychology, 26 (3), 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trippe, D. M., Moriarty, K. O., Russell, T. L., Carretta, T. R., & Beatty, A. S. (2014). Development of a cyber/information technology knowledge test for military enlisted technical training qualification. Military Psychology, 26 (3), 182–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar