Choosing the best method for local validity estimation: relative accuracy of meta-analysis versus a local study versus Bayes-analysis.
This study assessed the relative accuracy of 3 techniques--local validity studies, meta-analysis, and Bayesian analysis--for estimating test validity, incremental validity, and adverse impact in the local selection context. Bayes-analysis involves combining a local study with nonlocal (meta-analytic) validity data. Using tests of cognitive ability and personality (conscientiousness) as predictors, an empirically driven selection scenario illustrates conditions in which each of the 3 estimation techniques performs best. General recommendations are offered for how to estimate local parameters, based on true population variability and the number of studies in the meta-analytic prior. Benefits of empirical Bayesian analysis for personnel selection are demonstrated, and equations are derived to help guide the choice of a local validity technique (i.e., meta-analysis vs. local study vs. Bayes-analysis).
Newman
Daniel A
DA
Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843-4235, USA. d5n@tamu.edu
Jacobs
Rick R
RR
Bartram
Dave
D
D001499:Bayes Theorem; D002755:Choice Behavior; D006801:Humans; D008960:Models, Psychological; D011584:Psychology / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*