Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T11:34:22.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multistage Artifact Correction: An Illustration With Structured Employment Interviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2015

Allen I. Huffcutt ,
Satoris S. Culbertson  and
William S. Weyhrauch
Allen I. Huffcutt*
Affiliation:
Bradley University
Satoris S. Culbertson
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
William S. Weyhrauch
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
*
E-mail: huffcutt@bradley.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, Bradley University, Peoria, IL 61625
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 548 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, R. A., Carson, K. P., Alliger, G. M., & Carr, L. (1987). Correcting doubly truncated correlations: An improved approximation for correcting the bivariate normal correlation when truncation has occurred on both variables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 309–315. doi: 10.1177/0013164487472002Google Scholar
Callender, J. C., & Osburn, H. G. (1980). Development and test of a new model for validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 543–558. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.65.5.543Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Campion, J. E., & Hudson, J. P. Jr. (1994). Structured interviewing: A note on incremental validity and alternative question types. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 998–1002. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.998Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Pursell, E. D., & Brown, B. K. (1988). Structured interviewing: Raising the psychometric properties of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 41, 25–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00630.xGoogle Scholar
Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. F. (1995). A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 565–579. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.5.565Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., Culbertson, S. S., & Weyhrauch, W. S. (2013). Employment interview reliability: New meta-analytic estimates by structured and format. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21, 264–276. doi: 10.1111/ijsa.12036Google Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., Culbertson, S. S., & Weyhrauch, W. S. (2014). Moving forward indirectly: Reanalyzing the validity of employment interview with indirect range restriction methodology. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 297–309.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 594–612. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.594Google Scholar
Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1984). Do people do what they say? Further studies on the situational interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 569–573. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.569Google Scholar
Le, H., & Schmidt, F. L. (2006). Correcting for indirect range restriction in meta-analysis: Testing a new meta-analytic procedure. Psychological Methods, 11, 416–438. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.416Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R. D., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E. K. P., & James, L. R. (2003). The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80–128. doi: 10.1177/1094428102239427Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., Scherer, K. T., & James, L. R. (2014). Corrections for criterion reliability in validity generalization: A false prophet in a land of suspended judgment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(4), 478–500.Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., & Schmidt, N. (1995). Experience-based and situational interview questions: Studies of validity. Personnel Psychology, 48, 289–308. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01758.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, P. L., & Campion, J. E. (1992). An analysis of the predictive power of the panel interview and pre-employment tests. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 51–60. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00483.xGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Laczo, R. M., & Arvey, R. D. (2002). The effects of range restriction on estimates of criterion interrater reliability: Implications for validation research. Personnel Psychology, 55, 807–825. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00130.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, J. P. (2005). Multi-source perspectives of self-esteem, performance ratings, and source agreement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 464–482. doi: 10.1108/02683940510615424Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.557Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108–131. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.108Google Scholar