1984/07/01 by John E. Hunter, Ronda F. Hunter · 4 citations
Decision Sciences · Mathematics · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · #Psychometric Methodologies and Testing #Advanced Causal Inference Techniques #Healthcare Policy and Management
paper · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72
openalex publication_date 1984/07/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
Meta-analysis of the cumulative research on various predictors of job performance shows that for entry-level jobs there is no predictor with validity equal to that of ability, which has a mean validity of .53. For selection on the basis of current job performance, the work sample test, with mean validity of .54, is slightly better. For federal entry-level jobs, substitution of an alternative predictor would cost from 3.12 billion (job tryout) to 15.89 billion per year (age). Hiring on ability has a utility of 15.61 billion per year, but affects minority groups adversely. Hiring on ability by quotas would decrease this utility by 5%. A third strategy—using a low cutoff score—would decrease utility by 83%. Using other predictors in conjunction with ability tests might improve validity and reduce adverse impact, but there is as yet no data base for studying this possibility.