The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.
verifiedrich profile · Psychological Bulletin · 1998
Schmidt, Frank L.; Hunter, John E.
How this was studied
A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.
What this article reports
The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.
unstructured employment interviews → task performance
job experience years → overall job performance
reference checks → overall job performance
general mental ability gma → task performance
structured employment interviews → task performance
structured employment interviews → overall job performance
job knowledge → overall job performance
job knowledge test → task performance
conscientiousness → overall job performance
structured interviews → overall job performance
general mental ability gma → overall job performance
job knowledge → task performance
job knowledge test → overall job performance
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
job experience years predicts overall job performance
job knowledge predicts overall job performance
reference checks predicts overall job performance
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and Ihe 18 other selection procedures. Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of.63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of.65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of.63). A further advantage of the latter 2 combinations is that they can be used for both entry level selection and selection of experienced employees. The practical utility implications of these summary findings are substantial. The implications of these research findings for the development of theories of job performance are discussed. From the point of view of practical value, the most important property of a personnel assessment method is predictive validity: the ability to predict future job performance, job-related learning (such as amount of learning in training and development programs), and other criteria. The predictive validity coefficient is
What the literature says about it
Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.
supports “Finally, through a meta-analysis, Schmidt and Hunter (1998) conclude that unstructured interviews are ineffective at predicting the performance of future employees.”
disputes “…of work, general mental ability has been found to be associated with job performance and career success (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Hunter, 1986; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and in a far greater way than other factors, such as structured interviews or reference letters in selecting appropriate…”
disputes “…methods, which include application forms, graphology, reference checks, job knowledge tests and the selection interview, most of which have been found to have low validity in predicting job performance (Dale, 2003; Gatewood, Feild, & Barrick, 2016; Motowidlo, 2003; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).”
supports “These tests, in combination, are better able to predict overall job performance than a review of the candidate’s job experience, level of education, employment interview results, peer ratings, and reference checks (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).”
disputes “The assessment of intellectual ability plays an important role in personnel selection, as intelligence has long been established as one of the best performance predictors for diverse professions, especially for employees with no experience in the job (Schmidt et al. 2016).”
disputes “…methods, which include application forms, graphology, reference checks, job knowledge tests and the selection interview, most of which have been found to have low validity in predicting job performance (Dale, 2003; Gatewood, Feild, & Barrick, 2016; Motowidlo, 2003; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).”
supports “For one thing, Schmidt and Hunter’s review finds that GMA tests and work simulations combined are as predictive of work performance as the combination of GMA tests and structured job interviews – in both cases, the validity is 0.63 [37], p. 266).”
disputes “…methods, which include application forms, graphology, reference checks, job knowledge tests and the selection interview, most of which have been found to have low validity in predicting job performance (Dale, 2003; Gatewood, Feild, & Barrick, 2016; Motowidlo, 2003; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).”
supports “In the broader literature intelligence is seen as the single best predictor of future job performance (r =.58 for professional-managerial jobs; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and future job-knowledge related learning (r = .56 for all job levels studied; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).”
supports “These tests, in combination, predict overall job performance better than a review of the candidate’s job experience, level of education, employment interview results, peer ratings, and reference checks (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).”
disputes “Finally, through a meta-analysis, Schmidt and Hunter (1998) conclude that unstructured interviews are ineffective at predicting the performance of future employees.”
disputes “These tests, in combination, predict overall job performance better than a review of the candidate’s job experience, level of education, employment interview results, peer ratings, and reference checks (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).”
disputes “These tests, in combination, are better able to predict overall job performance than a review of the candidate’s job experience, level of education, employment interview results, peer ratings, and reference checks (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).”
supports “Thousands of validity studies and many meta-analyses have shown that they are excellent predictors of different organizational criteria, such as supervisory ratings, work sample tests, job knowledge acquisition, grades, production records, instructor ratings, promotions, sales, and wages, and that the correlation between GMA and performance appears to be similar across jobs that differ considerably in content (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998; Murphy, 2002; Ones et al., 2012; Schmitt, 2014; Salgado, 2017a; Berges et al., 2018; Rodríguez and López-Basterra, 2018).”
Ancillary research
Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.
- 10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2017.0417
- 10.1017/beq.2022.41
- 10.4102/sajhrm.v10i2.461
- 10.4102/sajhrm.v18i0.1348
- 10.1596/1813-9450-7506
- 10.1007/s10055-023-00752-9
- 10.1007/s12152-024-09563-4
- 10.5296/jad.v3i2.11491
- 10.1080/1359432x.2020.1787503
- 10.1596/1813-9450-8276
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02227
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.