William Dickens wrote:
> Be wary of numbers like this. As you might expect, they vary considerably from job
>to job. There are big problems with restriction of range in most studies since, for
>example, you don't see many highschool dropouts applying for jobs that require a PhD.
> Also, is a correlation of .18 such a poor correlation? Relative to what? If
>performance variance is high enough choosing only the top 10% of your applicants by
>education can make a big difference in your bottom line. Schmidt and Hunter are
>famous advocates of the use of IQ tests, and IQ generally is a better predictor of
>job performance than just about any other single factor. But IQ isn't costless to
>observe and for some jobs has a correlation with measures of performance that is as
>low as the numbers cited above for years of education. Personnel Psychologists aren't
>economists and a lot of the stuff they do would make an economist choke. -- Bill
>Dickens
Thanks for the heads up. If you have a moment, can you point me to one or two
book/review articles (by someone whose methodology you respect) that covers predictors
of long term on-the-job performance ?
Chris
