Can you select for integrity?
Integrity damage can be caused by anyone in any organization. But there is good news: solutions exist to reduce integrity damage. That’s what this blog is about.
Day: 7 May 2019
Integrity damage can be caused by anyone in any organization. But there is good news: solutions exist to reduce integrity damage. That’s what this blog is about.
This fact sheet provides an overview of the most commonly used (psychological) selection methods, both classical and modern. The figures are based on meta-analyses and dominant scientific literature.
| Method | Predictive validity (r) | Typical reliability |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive ability (GMA test) | .51 | High (.85-.95) |
| Work test | .54 | High (inter-rater ≥.70) |
| Structured interview | .51 | Medium-high (.60-.75) |
| Unstructured interview | .18-.38 | Low-medium (.40-.55) |
| Integrity test | .41 | High (α ≥.80) |
| Conscientiousness (Big Five) | .31 | Medium-high (α ~.75-.85) |
| Job knowledge test | .48 | High (≥.80) |
| Years of service | .18 | Not applicable |
| Video/asynchronous interview (incl. AI) | .30-.40 | Good at structuring; algorithmically variable |
| Machine learning / algorithmic models | .20-.50 | Depends on dataset; generalizability limited |
| Serious games / game-based work samples | .35-.50 | High on objective metrics |
| Social media screening | .00-.20 | Low and variable |
Call directly:
+31 88 277 377 6
