Schmidt, Hunter, McKenzie, and Muldrow (1979)
have recently demonstrated how the use of a new test,
which differed from a previous test in terms of validity
and/or per applicant cost, could result in impressive
gains in productivity (utility). This paper focuses on the consequences of changing the applicant pool
size (keeping the number of selectees fixed) on the
relative productivity gains of the two tests. It is shown
that the utility gain may be larger for one test than for
the other for part of the range of possible applicant
pool sizes and smaller for the rest of that range. Methods
are described for determining for any two tests (1)
whether such a reversal can occur and (2) the range of
applicant pool sizes leading to greater utility gains for
each test over the other. An implication is that the
choice of a test should be contingent on an analysis of
the relative productivity gains of the competing procedures
for the available applicant pool sizes.
Hsu, Louis M. (1983). Dependence of the relative productivity gains of two personnel selection tests on the applicant pool size. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 359-365. doi:10.1177/014662168300700311
Hsu, Louis M..
Dependence of the relative productivity gains of two personnel selection tests on the applicant pool size.
Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy,
Content distributed via the University of Minnesota's Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor.