Comparing methods of measuring interest fit: A large prediction study with career choice satisfaction

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT International Journal of Selection and Assessment Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1111/ijsa.12506
Kenneth E. Granillo-Velasquez, Kevin A. Hoff, Alexis Hanna, Frederick L. Oswald, Michael L. Morris
{"title":"Comparing methods of measuring interest fit: A large prediction study with career choice satisfaction","authors":"Kenneth E. Granillo-Velasquez,&nbsp;Kevin A. Hoff,&nbsp;Alexis Hanna,&nbsp;Frederick L. Oswald,&nbsp;Michael L. Morris","doi":"10.1111/ijsa.12506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Vocational interest inventories are widely used in both research and practice to help match people to well-fitting work environments. However, because there are many different methods to operationalize interest fit, a debate remains regarding the best ways to do so. To empirically inform this debate, our study compared the predictive power of four widely used interest fit indices (i.e., matching scale scores, profile deviance scores, profile correlations, and polynomial regression scores) for predicting career choice satisfaction. Using a large and diverse U.S. sample (<i>N</i> = 257,320), results indicated that among the three single-term interest fit measures, profile correlations (<i>R</i><sup><i>2</i></sup> = .04) explained more variance in career choice satisfaction than matching scale scores (<i>R</i><sup><i>2</i></sup> = .02) and profile deviance scores (<i>R</i><sup><i>2</i></sup> = .00). By comparison, the full 30-term polynomial regression model explained the most variance in career choice satisfaction (<i>R</i><sup><i>2</i></sup> = .09); in this case, however, the nonlinear terms that capture <i>fit effects</i> only accounted for about 22% (<i>R</i><sup><i>2</i></sup> = .02) of the total variance explained by the model. Overall, these results indicate that researchers and practitioners should be cautious of the greater criterion-related validity of polynomial regression models as <i>fit</i> information may not be a substantial contributor to their predictive capacities. In addition, our findings support the use of profile correlations as a predictive, single-term measure of interest fit.</p>","PeriodicalId":51465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12506","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Vocational interest inventories are widely used in both research and practice to help match people to well-fitting work environments. However, because there are many different methods to operationalize interest fit, a debate remains regarding the best ways to do so. To empirically inform this debate, our study compared the predictive power of four widely used interest fit indices (i.e., matching scale scores, profile deviance scores, profile correlations, and polynomial regression scores) for predicting career choice satisfaction. Using a large and diverse U.S. sample (N = 257,320), results indicated that among the three single-term interest fit measures, profile correlations (R2 = .04) explained more variance in career choice satisfaction than matching scale scores (R2 = .02) and profile deviance scores (R2 = .00). By comparison, the full 30-term polynomial regression model explained the most variance in career choice satisfaction (R2 = .09); in this case, however, the nonlinear terms that capture fit effects only accounted for about 22% (R2 = .02) of the total variance explained by the model. Overall, these results indicate that researchers and practitioners should be cautious of the greater criterion-related validity of polynomial regression models as fit information may not be a substantial contributor to their predictive capacities. In addition, our findings support the use of profile correlations as a predictive, single-term measure of interest fit.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
兴趣拟合测量方法比较:职业选择满意度的大型预测研究
职业兴趣量表被广泛应用于研究和实践中,以帮助人们适应合适的工作环境。然而,由于有许多不同的方法来操作利益匹配,关于这样做的最佳方法仍然存在争议。为了从经验上为这一争论提供信息,我们的研究比较了四种广泛使用的兴趣拟合指数(即匹配量表得分、剖面偏差得分、剖面相关性和多项式回归得分)预测职业选择满意度的预测能力。采用美国大样本(N = 257,320),结果表明,在三个单项兴趣拟合测量中,剖面相关性(R2 = .04)比匹配量表得分(R2 = .02)和剖面偏差得分(R2 = .00)更能解释职业选择满意度的方差。通过比较,全30项多项式回归模型解释了职业选择满意度的最大方差(R2 = .09);然而,在这种情况下,捕获拟合效应的非线性项仅占模型解释的总方差的22%左右(R2 = 0.02)。总的来说,这些结果表明,研究人员和实践者应该对多项式回归模型的更大标准相关有效性持谨慎态度,因为拟合信息可能不是其预测能力的实质性贡献者。此外,我们的研究结果支持将剖面相关性作为兴趣拟合的预测性单期测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
31.80%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Selection and Assessment publishes original articles related to all aspects of personnel selection, staffing, and assessment in organizations. Using an effective combination of academic research with professional-led best practice, IJSA aims to develop new knowledge and understanding in these important areas of work psychology and contemporary workforce management.
期刊最新文献
Why Participant Perceptions of Assessment Center Exercises Matter: Justice, Motivation, Self-Efficacy, and Performance Are Games Always Fun and Fair? A Comparison of Reactions to Different Game-Based Assessments Comparing Proctored and Unproctored Cognitive Ability Testing in High-Stakes Personnel Selection A Meta-Analysis of Accent Bias in Employee Interviews: The Effects of Gender and Accent Stereotypes, Interview Modality, and Other Moderating Features Toward Theory-Based Volitional Personality Development Interventions at Work
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1