"a fanciful and limited conception of how concurrent studies are conducted led to erroneous conclusions"
"The focal article’s conclusions and recommendations are based on flawed conceptual reasoning and empirically untested hypotheses"
".Neither Sackett et al. (2022) nor the focal article examined actual, real-world data contributing to meta-analyses to determine and appropriately address the degree of range restriction from concurrent studies... More perilously, they ignored USES data and Hunter’s analyses of those data which presented a standard deviation for each concurrent and predictive sample included in the GATB database that provided a reasonable empirical basis for range restriction corrections. Researchers should not knowingly discount practitioner data and knowingly report an underestimate of operational validity."
Thanks. very good. animations particularly helpful.
Interestingly, in the Armed Forces, if proper IQ tests are used, the successful applicants will show very diminished racial differences in ability.
RANGE RESTRICTION DRAMA: In hiring there is a 'debate' that would love both of your input on. It starts with this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232564809_The_Validity_and_Utility_of_Selection_Methods_in_Personnel_Psychology
And the author was working on this follow up before he died:
https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%204/Schmidt%20&%20Oh%20validity%20and%20util%20100%20yrs%20of%20research%20Wk%20PPR%202016.pdf
In the meantime there was this 'takedown' on the focus on cognitive:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357440267_Revisiting_meta-analytic_estimates_of_validity_in_personnel_selection_Addressing_systematic_overcorrection_for_restriction_of_range
To which the original author's co-author went with this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372810008_Revisiting_Sackett_et_al's_2022_rationale_behind_their_recommendation_against_correcting_for_range_restriction_in_concurrent_validation_studies
And got the following reply:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372810181_Correcting_for_range_restriction_in_meta-analysis_A_reply_to_Oh_et_al_2023
So, who is right???
Ones and Viswesvaran: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/industrial-and-organizational-psychology/article/response-to-speculations-about-concurrent-validities-in-selection-implications-for-cognitive-ability/5C25EFD82F603039E111FFAF299B1B0F
Very helpful.
"a fanciful and limited conception of how concurrent studies are conducted led to erroneous conclusions"
"The focal article’s conclusions and recommendations are based on flawed conceptual reasoning and empirically untested hypotheses"
".Neither Sackett et al. (2022) nor the focal article examined actual, real-world data contributing to meta-analyses to determine and appropriately address the degree of range restriction from concurrent studies... More perilously, they ignored USES data and Hunter’s analyses of those data which presented a standard deviation for each concurrent and predictive sample included in the GATB database that provided a reasonable empirical basis for range restriction corrections. Researchers should not knowingly discount practitioner data and knowingly report an underestimate of operational validity."
LOL. OMG.