Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

9-2023

Abstract

Sackett et al. (2022) identified previously unnoticed flaws in the way range restriction corrections have been applied in prior meta-analyses of personnel selection tools. They offered revised estimates of operational validity, which are often quite different from the prior estimates. The present paper attempts to draw out the applied implications of that work. We aim to a) present a conceptual overview of the critique of prior approaches to correction, b) outline the implications of this new perspective for the relative validity of different predictors and for the tradeoff between validity and diversity in selection system design, c) highlight the need to attend to variability in meta-analytic validity estimates, rather than just the mean, d) summarize reactions encountered to date to Sackett et al., and e) offer a series of recommendations regarding how to go about correcting validity estimates for unreliability in the criterion and for range restriction in applied work.

Keywords

range restriction corrections, meta-analyses, personnel selection tools, operational validity, predictor validity, selection system design, validity and diversity tradeoff, meta-analytic validity, criterion unreliability, correction techniques

Discipline

Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Research Areas

Organisational Behaviour and Human Resources

Publication

Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice

Volume

16

Issue

3

First Page

1

Last Page

18

ISSN

1754-9426

Publisher

Cambridge University Press

Embargo Period

4-4-2023

Copyright Owner and License

Authors

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.24

Download

Share

COinS