Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.

TLDR

Using other predictors with ability tests might improve validity and reduce adverse impact, but no data exist yet. The meta‑analysis shows ability tests have the highest validity (.53) for entry‑level jobs, work‑sample tests slightly outperform them (.54) for current‑job selection, and substituting alternatives would cost $3.12–$15.89 billion annually, while ability‑based hiring yields $15.61 billion in utility but harms minorities; quotas cut utility by 5% and low cutoffs by 83%.

Abstract

Meta-analysis of the cumulative research on various predictors of job performance shows that for entry-level jobs there is no predictor with validity equal to that of ability, which has a mean validity of .53. For selection on the basis of current job performance, the work sample test, with mean validity of .54, is slightly better. For federal entry-level jobs, substitution of an alternative predictor would cost from $3.12 billion (job tryout) to $15.89 billion per year (age). Hiring on ability has a utility of $15.61 billion per year, but affects minority groups adversely. Hiring on ability by quotas would decrease this utility by 5%. A third strategy—using a low cutoff score—would decrease utility by 83%. Using other predictors in conjunction with ability tests might improve validity and reduce adverse impact, but there is as yet no data base for studying this possibility.