管理学,罗宾斯,9版,英文Robbinsfom907.pptVIP

If a test is reliable, any individual’s score should remain fairly stable over time, assuming that the characteristic being measured is also stable. To be effective predictors, selection devices must possess an acceptable level of consistency. Any selection device that a manager uses must also demonstrate validity. Federal law prohibits managers from using any selection device that cannot be shown to be directly related to successful job performance. This constraint applies to entrance tests, too: Managers must be able to demonstrate that, once on the job, individuals with high scores on such a test outperform individuals with low scores. Consequently, the burden is on the organization to verify that any selection device it uses to differentiate applicants is related to job performance. * Managers use a number of selection devices to reduce accept and reject errors. The best-known include written tests, performance-simulation tests, and interviews. Evidence shows that tests of intellectual ability, spatial and mechanical ability, perceptual accuracy, and motor ability are moderately valid predictors for many semiskilled and unskilled operative jobs in industrial organizations. However, an enduring criticism of written tests is that intelligence and other tested characteristics may not necessarily be good indicators of an applicant’s job performance. This criticism has led to an increased use of performance-simulation tests, which are made up of actual job behaviors. The best-known performance-simulation tests are work sampling (a miniature replica of the job) and assessment centers (which simulate real problems one may face on the job). The former is suited to persons applying for routine jobs; the latter to managerial personnel. Because its content is essentially identical to job content, performance simulation should be a better predictor of short-term job performance than written tests and should minimize potential employment discrimination allegations. Addi