Predicting job performance: A comparison of expert opinion and research findings*
Stephen Dakin and
J. Armstrong ()
Additional contact information
Stephen Dakin: University of Canterbury - Christchurch - New Zealand
General Economics and Teaching from University Library of Munich, Germany
A survey was conducted of New Zealand personnel consultants. Their beliefs about the validity of various selection tools and their claimed usage of these tools was then compared with the validities in a previously published meta-analysis. The experts claimed to use the predictors they believed to be most valid. However, their beliefs about validity were unrelated to empirically demonstrated validities (Spearman's rho = -0.06). Suggestions were made on the types of research that are needed to improve predictive ability in selection and on the ways in which practitioners can use existing research.
Keywords: Employee selection; Forecasting; Job performance; Predictor validity; Research vs. expert opinion. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-bec
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 8
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Journal Article: Predicting job performance: A comparison of expert opinion and research findings (1989)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0412005
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in General Economics and Teaching from University Library of Munich, Germany
Bibliographic data for series maintained by EconWPA ().