Well, just like Psychometric Testing, it appears they are not very effective. I always suspected this and was delighted to come across an article published by Frank Schmidt and the late John Hunter in the Psychological Bulletin in 1998. These two very skilled researchers analyzed the pattern of relationships observed in peer reviewed journals during the prior 85 years to identify which employee selection methods were best and worst as predictors of job performance. They used a method called “meta-analysis” to do this, which they helped to develop and spread. The advantage of this method is — in the hands of skilled researchers like Schmidt and Hunter — is it reveals the overall patterns revealed by the weight of evidence, rather than the particular quirks of any single study.
The upshot of this research is that work sample tests (e.g., seeing if people can actually do key elements of a job — if a secretary can type or a programmer can write code ), general mental ability (IQ and related tests), and structured interviews had the highest validity of all methods examined. Schmidt and Hunter point out that three combinations of methods that were the most powerful predictors of job performance were
1.General Mental Ability plus a work sample test (in other words, hiring someone smart and seeing if they could do the work),
2.GMA plus an integrity test, and
3. GMA plus a structured interview (but note that unstructured interviews, the way they are usually done, are weaker).
Structured interviews came 3rd out of 19 while unstructured interviews came in at 9th. Unstructured interviews conducted by untrained interviewers are nearly guaranteed to hire the wrong people.
Well I`m confused now, aren`t GMA tests a form of Psychometric Test? and didn`t I read a few weeks ago that Psychometic Tests are not that reliable at all? maybe on their own theyre not but possibly in conjunction with another form of measurement such as a structured interview they are. Has anyone any thoughts on this?