FURTHER WITHIN-SETTING EMPIRICAL TESTS OF THE SITUATIONAL SPECIFICITY HYPOTHESIS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION
FURTHER WITHIN-SETTING EMPIRICAL TESTS OF THE SITUATIONAL SPECIFICITY HYPOTHESIS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION
复制标题
人才选拔情境特异性假说的进一步内部实证检验
DOI：
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1984.tb01453.x
复制
发表时间：
1984
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
J. Hunter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. Schmidt;Benjamin P. Ocasio;Joseph M. Hillery;J. Hunter
人员选拔中的情境特异性假设认为，同一测试和工作的不同研究中观察到的有效性系数的变化是由于构成工作绩效的环境之间的细微差异造成的。因此，该假设预测，如果设置不变，有效性也不会变化。这项研究使用来自单个大样本有效性研究 (A^ = 1,455) 的数据，生成了大量小样本研究，其中设置（组织、工作、测试、标准衡量、申请人池、时间段和样本量）保持不变。研究发现，即使在这些情况下，各个研究在（a）观察到的有效性系数、（b）显着性水平和（c）（使用传统数据分析方法）关于有效性存在或不存在的结论方面也存在很大差异。这些发现否定了情境特异性假说，并强烈反对传统的数据分析程序和依赖单一小样本研究的做法。与传统数据分析程序得出的错误结论相反，荟萃分析方法正确估计了总体观察效度为 0.22，并正确表明观察效度的所有研究间方差仅归因于抽样误差。
The situational specificity hypothesis in personnel selection holds that variation in observed validity coefficients across studies for the same test and job is due to subtle variations from setting to setting in what constitutes job performance. This hypothesis therefore predicts that, if the setting does not vary, validity will not vary. Using data from a single large-sample validity study (A^ = 1,455), this research generated numerous small-sample studies for which the setting (organization, job, test, criterion measure, applicant pool, time period, and sample size) was held constant. It was found that even under these circumstances there was substantial variability across studies in (a) observed validity coefficients, (b) significance levels, and (c) (using traditional data analytic methods) conclusions about the presence or absence of validity. These findings disconfirm the situational specificity hypothesis and argue strongly against traditional data-analytic procedures and the practice of reliance on single small-sample studies. In contrast to the erroneous conclusions produced by traditional data-analytic procedures, meta-analytic methods correctly estimated the population observed validity at .22 and correctly indicated that all between-study variance in observed validities was due to sampling error alone.