Klaus Moser & George Gunnesch-Luca
Abstract
With the introduction of the meta-analytical method of validity generalization, it has become possible to declare a number of authoritative findings in research and practice of personnel selection, especially statements on the quality of different personnel selection procedures, the appropriateness of their combination, or the limited need to consider special circumstances of the respective selection situation. Methodological norms for validation studies of personnel selection procedures have also been established. However, these are only limited social norms, i.e., beliefs shared by a manageable circle of people that sanction deviations or at least disapprove deviations. Such norms include the individual’s job performance being the best validation criterion, that supervisors are the best source of judgment for its assessment, that performance should actually be measured multidimensionally, or that the job analysis-based foundation of personnel selection procedures continues to play a central role and that criterion validity is underestimated by the usual validation studies and therefore needs considerable corrections. We discuss the extent to which these are primarily social norms and develop a series of questions that show that the field of personnel selection is a both methodologically and theoretically demanding research area.
Keywords: Criterion validity, validity generalization, performance criteria, job analysis, variance restriction, situation strength