Klaus G. Melchers
Abstract
Schmidt and Hunter’s (1998) article provides an overview and comparison of the criterion-related validities of different personnel selection procedures. For their article, Schmidt and Hunter chose meta-analytic validities that were corrected for range restriction in the predictor and unreliability of the criterion (i.e., the job performance measure). By doing so, Schmidt and Hunter wanted to allow for a comprehensive
comparison of the true validities of the different selection procedures. Nevertheless, there are several aspects that impair the interpretation of this comparison or that might lead to inappropriate conclusions: First, the quality and the data base of the meta-analyses that were used for this comparison, second, missing information about uncorrected validities of the different selection procedures, third, differences concerning the procedures and assumptions for the meta-analytic corrections, fourth, the choice of the predicted criterion, and fifth, the omission of several selection procedures in the comparison. In the present article, the different aspects and their relevance will be explained in detail, and it will be described, to which degree conclusions concerning the validity of selection procedures might change when other assumptions are made than by Schmidt and Hunter or when other methodological procedures are used.
Keywords: Personnel selection, meta-analysis, criterion-related validity, review