A META‐ANALYSIS OF WORK SAMPLE TEST VALIDITY: UPDATING AND INTEGRATING SOME CLASSIC LITERATURE
verifiedrich profile · Personnel Psychology · 2005
ROTH, PHILIP L.; BOBKO, PHILIP; McFARLAND, LYNN A.
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.
work sample → task performance
work sample → quality of hire
work sample → task performance
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
Work sample tests have been used in applied psychology for decades as important predictors of job performance, and they have been suggested to be among the most valid predictors of job performance. As we examined classic work sample literature, we found the narrative review by Asher and Sciarrino (1974) to be plagued by many methodological problems. Further, it is possible that data used in this study may have influenced the results (e.g., r = .54) reported by Hunter and Hunter in their seminal work in 1984. After integrating all of the relevant data, we found an observed mean correlation between work sample tests and measures of job performance of .26. This value increased to .33 when measures of job performance (e.g., supervisory ratings) were corrected for attenuation. Our results suggest that the level of the validity for work sample tests may not be as large as previously thought (i.e., approximately one third less than previously thought). Further, our work also summarizes the relationship of work sample exams to measures of general cognitive ability. We found that work sample tests were associated with an observed correlation of .32 with tests of general cognitive ability.
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 “…to assessment instruments, scientific evidence showed that scores on cognitive ability tests, assessment centers, work sample tests, and structured interviews are valid predictors of job performance (Huffcutt et al., 2014; Ones et al., 2010; Roth et al., 2005; Sackett, Shewach, & Keiser, 2017).”
supports “In their meta-analysis, Roth, Bobko, and McFarland (2005) reported a mean correlation between work sample tests and measures of job performance of .26.”
Ancillary research
Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.