Advertisement

Qualität in der Personalauswahl

Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Im Rahmen dieses Kapitels werden wichtige Qualitätsstandards für die Personalauswahl vorgestellt, die in verschiedenen Ländern und von verschiedenen Organisationen bzw. Verbänden erarbeitet wurden, und es wird erläutert, welche zentralen Qualitätsaspekte in diesen Standards enthalten sind. Anschließend wird dargelegt, welche Befunde es gibt, dass sich die Berücksichtigung dieser Qualitätsaspekte auf verschiedene Indikatoren für die diagnostische Güte von Auswahlverfahren auswirkt, wie etwa die Reliabilität und die Konstrukt- und Kriteriumsvalidität der verwendeten Verfahren. Schließlich wird beschrieben, wie dies den finanziellen Nutzen beeinflusst, der für ein Unternehmen mit einem qualitativ guten Auswahlverfahren verbunden ist.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2015). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartels, L. K., & Doverspike, D. (1997). Effects of disaggregation on managerial assessment center validity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, N., Höft, S., Holzenkamp, M., & Spinath, F. M. (2011). The predictive validity of assessment centers in German-speaking regions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cleary, T. A. (1968). Test bias: Prediction of grades of Negro and white students in integrated colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gaugler, B. B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thornton, G. C., III, & Bentson, C. (1987). Meta-analysis of assessment center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694–734.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huffcutt, A. I., & Woehr, D. J. (1999). Further analysis of employment interview validity: A quantitative evaluation of interviewer-related structuring methods. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines. (2015). Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. Journal of Management, 41, 1244–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kersting, M. (2014). Qualitätsstandards der Personalauswahl. In H. Schuler & U. P. Kanning (Hrsg.), Lehrbuch der Personalpsychologie (3. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kersting, M., Häcker, H., & Hornke, L. F. (2011). Qualitätsstandards in der Diagnostik. In L. F. Hornke, M. Amelang, & M. Kersting (Hrsg.), Grundfragen und Anwndungsfelder psychologischer Diagnostik. Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Serie Psychologische Diagnostik (Bd. 1). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kutcher, E. J., & Bragger, J. D. (2004). Selection interviews of overweight job applicants: Can structure reduce the bias? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1993–2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67, 241–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lievens, F., & De Paepe, A. (2004). An empirical investigation of interviewer-related factors that discourage the use of high structure interviews. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 730–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meade, A. W., & Tonidandel, S. (2010). Not seeing clearly with Cleary: What test bias analyses do and do not tell us. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Melchers, K. G., Klehe, U.-C., Richter, G. M., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Lievens, F. (2009). “I know what you want to know”: The impact of interviewees’ ability to identify criteria on interview performance and construct-related validity. Human Performance, 22, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saks, A. M., & McCarthy, J. M. (2006). Effects of discriminatory interview questions and gender on applicant reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1999). Theory testing and measurement error. Intelligence, 27, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmidt, F. L., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2004). A counterintuitive hypothesis about employment interview validity and some supporting evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 553–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shaffer, J. A., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65, 445–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Society for industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selction prodecures (4th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Author.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taylor, P. J., & Small, B. (2002). Asking applicants what they would do versus what they did do: A meta-analytic comparison of situational and past behaviour employment interview questions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Williams, K. Z., Schaffer, M. M., & Ellis, L. E. (2013). Legal risk in selection: An analysis of processes and tools. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Williamson, L. G., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A. (1997). Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 900–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Woehr, D. J., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2003). The construct-related validity of assessment center ratings: A review and meta-analysis of the role of methodological factors. Journal of Management, 29, 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Psychologie und PädagogikUniversität UlmUlmDeutschland

Personalised recommendations