Personnel Selection Procedures as a Function of Sample Size, Cut Scores, and Quartile Ranking.
Saved in:
| Title: | Personnel Selection Procedures as a Function of Sample Size, Cut Scores, and Quartile Ranking. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Ferrara, F. Felicia |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 18 |
| Publication Date: | 1995 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Evaluative Speeches/Meeting Papers |
| Descriptors: | Classification, Cutting Scores, Job Applicants, Personnel Selection, Sample Size, Scores, Scoring, Simulation, Test Results |
| Abstract: | Cut scores, quartile ranking, sample size, and overall classification scheme were studied as personnel selection procedures in two samples. The first was 120 simulated observations of employee scores based on actual selection procedures for applicants for administrative assistant positions. The other sample was composed of test results for 73 applicants for a municipality staff assistant position. It was apparent that overall ranking candidates may result in loss in cost and staff time, since about 28% of applicants were found to be misclassified in this study. Although arbitrary sample sizes did not appear to affect the classification of an individual candidate, cut score variation did result in significant changes in classification. When cut score changes as small as five points were made, reclassification of candidates did occur. Because of vulnerability to litigation, many companies have turned to rank ordering employees and selecting a specific top portion. However, employer vulnerability still exists with regard to methods used in setting cut scores and classifying candidates. Five tables and two figures illustrate various types of classification. (Contains 13 references.) (SLD) |
| Entry Date: | 1996 |
| Accession Number: | ED387518 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Cut scores, quartile ranking, sample size, and overall classification scheme were studied as personnel selection procedures in two samples. The first was 120 simulated observations of employee scores based on actual selection procedures for applicants for administrative assistant positions. The other sample was composed of test results for 73 applicants for a municipality staff assistant position. It was apparent that overall ranking candidates may result in loss in cost and staff time, since about 28% of applicants were found to be misclassified in this study. Although arbitrary sample sizes did not appear to affect the classification of an individual candidate, cut score variation did result in significant changes in classification. When cut score changes as small as five points were made, reclassification of candidates did occur. Because of vulnerability to litigation, many companies have turned to rank ordering employees and selecting a specific top portion. However, employer vulnerability still exists with regard to methods used in setting cut scores and classifying candidates. Five tables and two figures illustrate various types of classification. (Contains 13 references.) (SLD) |
|---|
