King's College London

Research portal

A comparative study of practitioner perceptions of selection methods in the United Kingdom

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

A comparative study of practitioner perceptions of selection methods in the United Kingdom. / Jackson, Duncan J. R.; Dewberry, Chris; Gallagher, Jaroslava et al.

In: JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 91, No. 1, 01.03.2018, p. 33-56.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Jackson, DJR, Dewberry, C, Gallagher, J & Close, L 2018, 'A comparative study of practitioner perceptions of selection methods in the United Kingdom', JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 33-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12187

APA

Jackson, D. J. R., Dewberry, C., Gallagher, J., & Close, L. (2018). A comparative study of practitioner perceptions of selection methods in the United Kingdom. JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 91(1), 33-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12187

Vancouver

Jackson DJR, Dewberry C, Gallagher J, Close L. A comparative study of practitioner perceptions of selection methods in the United Kingdom. JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY. 2018 Mar 1;91(1):33-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12187

Author

Jackson, Duncan J. R. ; Dewberry, Chris ; Gallagher, Jaroslava et al. / A comparative study of practitioner perceptions of selection methods in the United Kingdom. In: JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY. 2018 ; Vol. 91, No. 1. pp. 33-56.

Bibtex Download

@article{2ccef6b07e144878a5fdf77e2faf6a77,
title = "A comparative study of practitioner perceptions of selection methods in the United Kingdom",
abstract = "In this study, 476 participants, divided into occupational psychology (OP)‐, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)‐, human resource management (HRM)‐qualified, and layperson subgroups, provided their perceptions of the validity, fairness, and frequency of use of employee selection methods. Results of a mixed‐effects analysis of covariance revealed that respondent qualification background predicted the degree to which participant validity perceptions were aligned with research‐based estimates of validity, F [3, 29.39] = 20.06, p < .001, η2 = .67. Corrected pairwise comparisons suggested that perceptions of participants with CIPD and HRM backgrounds were not significantly more aligned with research estimates of validity than were the perceptions of laypeople. OP participant validity perceptions were significantly more aligned with research estimates than all other subgroups, (p < .03). Evidence was also found for some between‐group consistency regarding frequency‐of‐use perceptions, but less between‐group consistency was found vis‐{\`a}‐vis perceptions of fairness. Implications for decision‐making in employee selection are discussed.",
author = "Jackson, {Duncan J. R.} and Chris Dewberry and Jaroslava Gallagher and Liam Close",
year = "2018",
month = mar,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/joop.12187",
language = "English",
volume = "91",
pages = "33--56",
journal = "JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY",
issn = "0963-1798",
publisher = "BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOC",
number = "1",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative study of practitioner perceptions of selection methods in the United Kingdom

AU - Jackson, Duncan J. R.

AU - Dewberry, Chris

AU - Gallagher, Jaroslava

AU - Close, Liam

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - In this study, 476 participants, divided into occupational psychology (OP)‐, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)‐, human resource management (HRM)‐qualified, and layperson subgroups, provided their perceptions of the validity, fairness, and frequency of use of employee selection methods. Results of a mixed‐effects analysis of covariance revealed that respondent qualification background predicted the degree to which participant validity perceptions were aligned with research‐based estimates of validity, F [3, 29.39] = 20.06, p < .001, η2 = .67. Corrected pairwise comparisons suggested that perceptions of participants with CIPD and HRM backgrounds were not significantly more aligned with research estimates of validity than were the perceptions of laypeople. OP participant validity perceptions were significantly more aligned with research estimates than all other subgroups, (p < .03). Evidence was also found for some between‐group consistency regarding frequency‐of‐use perceptions, but less between‐group consistency was found vis‐à‐vis perceptions of fairness. Implications for decision‐making in employee selection are discussed.

AB - In this study, 476 participants, divided into occupational psychology (OP)‐, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)‐, human resource management (HRM)‐qualified, and layperson subgroups, provided their perceptions of the validity, fairness, and frequency of use of employee selection methods. Results of a mixed‐effects analysis of covariance revealed that respondent qualification background predicted the degree to which participant validity perceptions were aligned with research‐based estimates of validity, F [3, 29.39] = 20.06, p < .001, η2 = .67. Corrected pairwise comparisons suggested that perceptions of participants with CIPD and HRM backgrounds were not significantly more aligned with research estimates of validity than were the perceptions of laypeople. OP participant validity perceptions were significantly more aligned with research estimates than all other subgroups, (p < .03). Evidence was also found for some between‐group consistency regarding frequency‐of‐use perceptions, but less between‐group consistency was found vis‐à‐vis perceptions of fairness. Implications for decision‐making in employee selection are discussed.

U2 - 10.1111/joop.12187

DO - 10.1111/joop.12187

M3 - Article

VL - 91

SP - 33

EP - 56

JO - JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

JF - JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

SN - 0963-1798

IS - 1

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454