1 / 13

Using a Scored Background Questionnaire for Selection: Construct and Criterion-related Validity

Using a Scored Background Questionnaire for Selection: Construct and Criterion-related Validity. Frederick P. Morgeson – Michigan State University Matthew H. Reider – Purdue University Michael A. Campion – Purdue University Slides are available at: http://www.msu.edu/~morgeson/.

gsheehan
Download Presentation

Using a Scored Background Questionnaire for Selection: Construct and Criterion-related Validity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using a Scored Background Questionnaire for Selection: Construct and Criterion-related Validity Frederick P. Morgeson – Michigan State University Matthew H. Reider – Purdue University Michael A. Campion – Purdue University Slides are available at: http://www.msu.edu/~morgeson/

  2. In the Beginning • Collect background information • Resumes and application forms • Huge reduction in number of applicants

  3. Our Purpose • Comparatively little research • A gap in the literature • Construct and criterion-related validity • Development and validation of scored background questionnaire

  4. What’s Been Done? • Application forms • Weighted application blanks • Training & Experience Evaluations

  5. What We Did • Developed a scored background questionnaire • Keep it simple • Conducted a job analysis • Key job factors assessed

  6. The Background Questionnaire • Questions • Experience in manufacturing and production • Experience with work-related equipment • Experience with physically demanding work • Experience with shift work and overtime • Educational and training background • Demonstrating ability to learn • Manufacturing or business courses • Maintenance or technical courses • Promotion experiences • Experience working in a team • Situations demonstrating creativity or innovation

  7. Example Item • What experiences have you had with physically demanding work (e.g., working with your hands, standing or sitting for extended periods on the job, lifting, etc.)? • Company name, title/job duties, years • If you have not had previous employment of this type, have you ever done this type of work in other settings (e.g., farm, work at home, volunteer work, hobbies, etc.)? • Please explain, years

  8. How it Was Scored • Supervisors or HR representatives rated the questions • Used a simple 5-point rating scale • Example scale (5) Substantial work experience suggesting he/she can perform physical requirements of jobs.(3) No relevant work experience, but no indication that physical requirements would be a problem.(1) Potential concerns that there may be difficulties meeting physical requirements.

  9. Methods • Setting & Participants • Steel mini-mill • 96 incumbents • Study context • Development of new selection system • Concurrent validation study • Different supervisors provided predictor/criteria data

  10. Predictor and Criterion Measures • Scored background questionnaire • 10-item measure, a = .74 • Structured Panel Interview • 14 situational questions; 14 past behavior questions • Inter-rater reliability = .89; a = .84. • Personal Characteristics Inventory (Barrick & Mount) • Big 5 Personality • Teamwork-KSA Test (Stevens & Campion) • Job performance • 10-item measure, a = .97 • Supervisory ratings • Working safely, working efficiently, etc.

  11. Results

  12. Results Summary • What is the background questionnaire measuring? • Quality of work experiences • General ability • Dependability • Ability to work well with others • What about predicting job performance? • Decent validity • Multiple correlation

  13. Conclusions • Good reliability • Related to other predictors • Good validity • Potentially useful screening device

More Related