Work samples

Det är en spridd uppfattning att arbetsprov är den bästa prediktorn för arbetsresultat. Se emellertid en kritisk artikel av Roth et al, som skriver i sin sammanfattning:


"Work sample tests have been used in applied psychology for decades as important predictors of job performance, and they have been suggested to be among the most valid predictors of job performance. As we examined classic work sample literature, we found the narrative review by Asher and Sciarrino (1974) to be plagued by many methodological problems. Further, it is possible that data used in this study may have influenced the results (e.g., r = .54) reported by Hunter and Hunter in their seminal work in 1984. After integrating all of the relevant data, we found an observed mean correlation between work sample tests and measures of job performance of .26. This value increased to .33 when measures of job performance (e.g., supervisory ratings) were corrected for attenuation. Our results suggest that the level of the validity for work sample tests may not be as large as previously thought (i.e., approximately one third less than previously thought). Further, our work also summarizes the relationship of work sample exams to measures of general cognitive ability. We found that work sample tests were associated with an observed correlation of .32 with tests of general cognitive ability."


Arbetsprov tycks alltså i snitt ha en validitet på samma, ganska blygsamma, nivå som vanliga personlighetstest, omkring 0.3. Kanske kan de ge tillskott utöver sådana test, men bättre är nog att använda ett mera effektivt test, som ju finns. Arbetsprov tar dessutom tid och kostar mycket mera än test.




Referens


Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & McFarland, L. A. (2005). A meta-analysis of work sample test validity: Updating and integrating some classic literature. [doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00714.x]. Personnel Psychology, 58(4), 1009-1037