Content area
Abstract
The selection of productive workers is critical in today's competitive economic environment. The kinds of predictive criteria currently in use include reference checks, intelligence tests, ability tests, integrity tests, interviews, biodata, work samples, assessment centers, and background checks. Some authors hypothesize that work performance consists of two different qualitative components—task and contextual activities. If this is so, then differing criteria might be more predictive of task or contextual performance. This study, which was conducted in the Public Safety Department of a large private university, was designed to compare the validity of several personnel selection instruments in the prediction of the results of applicants' background investigations, and incumbents' subsequent contextual and task work performance. The selection instruments used were a written test (entry level Public Safety Officer and Community Service Officer tests), an integrity test (the abbreviated Reid Report), a conscientiousness questionnaire (the Conscientiousness Biographical Data Questionnaire), a structured behavioral interview, and a personality inventory (the NEO PI-R). Out of a total of 168 applicants who were interviewed, 23 were subsequently hired, and job performance evaluations were collected for 18 employees. Although there were some statistically significant findings, the primary hypotheses were not supported. There was a restriction of range because many potential applicants screen themselves out of the process early in the proceedings once they realize the extensive background investigation which will be conducted. This study did provide some evidence for the validity of the structured behavioral interview, and the conscientiousness questionnaire. Unfortunately, because there was no discriminant validity between the task and contextual performance evaluations, some of the a priori predictions could not be tested. Some racial differences were found in the results of the written test, the integrity test, the interview conscientiousness average scores and the overall interview average scores. Implications of the study's findings, limitations and recommendations, and directions for future research are discussed.
