Benedikt Hell, Katja Päßler & Miriam Nido
Abstract
The meta-analysis by Schmidt and Hunter (1998) has had a major impact on the research and application field of aptitude diagnostics to date, and it is expected that the meta-analysis by Sackett, Zhang, Berry, and Lievens (2022) will have a similar impact. What is unclear is the extent to which these meta-analytic findings are perceived in practice. This study therefore examines the extent to which validity assessments by HR professionals align with the meta-analytic findings of Schmidt and Hunter (1998) and the newly published study by Sackett, Zhang, Berry, and Lievens (2022) and how discrepancies can be explained. The results show that compared to the existing meta-analytical findings the validity of assessment centers and of credentials is overestimated, while the validity of cognitive ability tests is underestimated. Overall, however, HR professionals have a predominantly realistic picture of the validity of the selection procedures. The identified divergent assessments by HR professionals are explored and conclusions for further research and dissemination of the research results are derived.
Keywords: science-practice gap, validity, personnel selection, meta-analysis, user perspective