Post Jobs-Assess Candidates-Hire Smarter
Intro to Job Posting/Assessing/Matching/Hiring
Adventis Solutions helps managers make faster, accurate and more predictable talent decisions by scientifically matching candidate strengths with the job requirements. Adventis Solutions identifies the best job candidates – the ones most likely to be top performers – before you peruse a resume.
With the way AI is transforming the pre-employment assessment space, it’s easy to see why. Recent advances in artificial intelligence are opening up new avenues for pre-employment assessments.
Adventis Solutions is easy to use. The candidate applies for your job and completes a questionnaire and then Adventis Solutions automatically analyzes the results to identify strengths in the three most important job success areas: learning style (cognitive preferences), work style and work culture fit. That way you spend your time on the most qualified candidates.
The information from Adventis Intelligent Staffing Solutions is three times more accurate than a resume or an interview by themselves, so the results provide managers with important decision data. Our Solutions are designed in accordance with published validation principles, so our users comply with EEOC Guidelines. Organizations that want to stay competitive know that using our post-assess-hire technology results in quicker hires and lower turnover and absenteeism rates. A better fit means more productive staff that stay longer.
Your company competitive advantage is directly related to the people you hire – to ensure your company stays successful, your employees need to drive the result. Using Adventis Solutions during employee selection increases both revenue and profitability of an organization by helping managers quickly select the most qualified applicants for each open position.
ArrayValidity is the key to an accurate pre-hire assessment. Validity refers to the degree to which a test or other measurement truly measures what it is intended to measure.
For example, the test question “1 + 1 = _____” is a valid question about addition because it really can measure the ability to perform basic addition. The question is less valid as a measurement of advanced math because this simple problem does not assess the knowledge needed to do advanced math. The addition question is invalid as a measure of American history knowledge – the ability to add two single digits has nothing do with history knowledge and cannot predict success in history.
Selection Systems and the Law
The effectiveness of any selection tool is tied to its validity and to its proper use in a selection system.
The Adventis Solutions assessment dimensions are valid to the constructs they assess. Figure 1 below shows the validity scores for the data sources most often used to make selection decisions.
Note that the 1 Christopher L. 2004. Research Methods. Available at http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/validityreliability.html (accessed October 13, 2011).
Most common data sources hiring managers use – years of education, experience and interviews – yield results similar to random selection!
Scientific selection does not hamper efforts to comply with fair employment practices. “Instead, legal compliance is actually enhanced, not degraded, and is a perfect example of a win-win situation in strategic investment in HR practices.” (Handler 2007). The U.S. Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978) (Guidelines) helps organizations assure a consistent approach to selection.
Using the Guidelines employers can evaluate their selection procedures, which include any measure or system used in making a decision. Every selection tool used in hiring is considered a test including résumé reviews, key word searches, interviews, telephone screening, and any other assessment activities including work simulations, questionnaires or assessments, and paper and pencil exercises.
The Guidelines also describe requirements for acceptable types of validities for employment assessments 2. Criterion-related, construct-related, and content-related validities are considered acceptable. The Adventis Solutions questionnaire employs construct validity in establishing the accuracy of each dimension. The Adventis Solutions Custom Job formula uses current job applicants and provides a second validation step.
Using a valid assessment demonstrates due diligence on the part of the employer to ensure the selection criteria have been validated to the particular job being filled.
Convergent construct validities for Adventis Solutions dimensions range from .72 to .91.
Adventis Solutions Validity Information
The Adventis Solutions Job Formula functions as a job analysis and establishes construct validity for all modules of the assessment. The Job Formula is a more accurate way of determining the required knowledge, skills, abilities, and behavioral traits than a standard job analysis because it is specific to the actual position being filled, as opposed to being a general job analysis used across a job family.
The behavioral (Work Style) section is based on eight different, well-established personality tests. These tests have been validated thoroughly in employment settings.
The validity coefficients range from .70 – .90. Most are around .85. The Work Style module is construct valid.
The Job Formula will identify not just the level of each dimension required for the position, but its relative importance, too.
The Work Culture module is also both construct and criterion valid.
The cognitive ability measure (Learning Strengths) is construct valid.
The Guidelines note that cognitive ability cannot be considered content valid. There is a significant body of research demonstrating the criterion validity of cognitive ability across all jobs.
No single assessment, test, or decision method is accurate enough to, by itself, predict future job success.
For that reason Adventis Solutions recommends that employers use several job-related methods in making hiring decisions.
For example Adventis suggest Managers use a combination of a pre-employment assessment, a job simulation, and an interview to support the final selection decision like a three legged stool.
Cognitive Ability + Behavioral / Personality .67 Cognitive Ability + Structured Interview .63 Cognitive Ability + Work Sample .60
Work Sample Tests .54 Cognitive tests .51 Structured Interviews .51
Job Knowledge .48 Personality Test .40
Interests .10 References .26
Unstructured Interviews .18 Years of Job Experience .18 Years of Education .10 Interests .10
Notice that References, Unstructured Interviews, Years of Job Experience, and Years of Education – factors often used in talent decision making – are relatively low on the scale. This indicates these elements do not tell us much about a person’s likely success in a job. The closer a source is to zero (the bottom) on the scale, the less we should depend on the information as a reliable predictor.
The closer a source is to 1.0 (the top) on the scale, the more we can rely on it as valid information that can be used to estimate the future performance of the individual.4 Adventis Solutions measures cognitive ability (Learning Style) and personality (Work Style and Work Culture). In addition to Job Match information, the Adventis Solutions report generates custom behavioral interview questions that can be used by hiring managers as a part of a structured interview process.
3 Schmidt, Frank L. and Hunter, John E. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin 12: 262-274. Cited in: Robertson, I. T. Smith, Mike. 2001. Personnel selection. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology 74(4): 441-472.
4 Schmidt, Frank L. and Hunter, John E. 1998
Selected Scientific Bibliography
Austin, J.T. and H. J. Klein. 1996. Work motivation and goal striving. In K.R Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations. 209-257. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barrick, M.R. and M.K. Mount. 1993. Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 111-118.
Dunn, Wendy S., Michael K. Mount, Murray R. Barrick, and Deniz S. Ones. 1995. Relative Importance of Personality and General Mental Ability in Managers’ Judgments of Applicant Qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology 80(4): 500-509.
Fernández-Aráoz, Claudio, Boris Groysberg, and Nitin Nohria. 2009. The Definitive Guide To Recruiting in Good Times and Bad. Harvard Business Review 87 (5): 74-84.
Fisher, Cynthia D. and Gregory J. Boyle. 1997. Personality and Employee Selection: Credibility Regained. Discussion paper no. 62. Gold Coast, Australia: Bond University.
Goldberg, L. R. 1999. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower- level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press 7: 7- 28.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. 2006. The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality 40: 84-96.
Greenberg, Herbert M. and Jeanne Greenberg. 1980. Job matching for better sales performance. Harvard Business Review 58 (5): 128-133.
Grossman, Robert J. February 2009. Hiring to Fit the Culture. HR Magazine 54(2). Handler, Charles. 2007. The Benefits of Using Scientifically-Based Assessments as a Core Component
of the Hiring Process. White Paper available at http://tinyurl.com/m4guk64. Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class structure in
American Life. New York: The Free Press. Hogan, Joyce, Paul Barrett, and Robert Hogan. 2007. Personality Measurement, Faking, and
Employment Selection. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (5): 1270–1285.
Hunter, J. E. 1980. Test validation for 12,000 jobs: An application of synthetic validity and validity generalization to the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. 1984. Validity and utility of alternate predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96: 72–98.
Hurtz, G. M. and J. J. Donovan. 2000. Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 869-879.
International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences. Internet Web Site http://ipip.ori.org.
Judge, Timothy A., Daniel Heller, and Michael K. Mount. 2002. Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(3): 530–541.
Kristof-Brown, Amy L., Ryan D. Zimmerman, and Erin C. Johnson. 2005. Consequences of Individuals’ Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis Of Person–Job, Person–Organization, Person–Group, and Person–Supervisor Fit. Personnel Psychology 58 (2): 281-342.
La Grange, L. and G Roodt. 2001. Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of the Job Performance of Insurance Sales People. Journal of Industrial Psychology 27(3): 35-43.
Manley, Gregory G. and Juan Benavidez. 2008. Using g alternatives to reduce subgroup differences when predicting US public-sector performance. Equal Opportunities International 27 (4): 337 – 354.
McCulloch, Malcolm C. and Daniel B. Turban. 2007. Using Person–Organization Fit to Select Employees for High-Turnover Jobs. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15 (1):63- 71.
Ones, Deniz S., Chockalingam Viswesvaran, and A.D. Reiss. 1996. The Role of Social Desirability in Personality Testing for Personnel Selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 660–679.
Pordeli, Hassan, Mohamad Sepehri, Russell Baker, and Tom Burke. 2008. Improving New Hire Turnover Through The Use Of Assessment Tools. Journal of Business Case Studies 4(9): 11-20.
Schmidt, Frank L. and Hunter, John E. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin 12: 262-274.
Schmidt, Frank L. and John Hunter. 2004. General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86(1): 162–173.
Tett, Robert P. and Neil D. Christiansen. 2007. Personality Tests at the Crossroads: A Response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt. Personnel Psychology 60: 967– 993.
Viswesvaran, C., Deniz S. Ones and L.M. Hough. 2001. Do Impression Management Scales in Personality Inventories Predict Managerial Job Performance? International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9: 277–289.
Viswesvaran, Chockalingam, Jürgen Deller, and Deniz S. Ones. 2007. Personality Measures in Personnel Selection: Some New Contributions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15(3): 354-358.
Hiring managers and talent acquisition functions use many methods to evaluate and try to predict a candidate’s ability to perform a job and gauge fit within the company/team culture. Talent assessments are tools that usually profile a person’s behavior, personality and capabilities. They help a business make decisions about hiring, promoting and developing their talent, and encompass many pre-hire selection activities.
To see how Post Jobs, Assess, Hire.