是不是也该重新审视情境特殊性了?

IF 11.5 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice Pub Date : 2023-08-31 DOI:10.1017/iop.2023.40
J. DeSimone, T. Fezzey
{"title":"是不是也该重新审视情境特殊性了?","authors":"J. DeSimone, T. Fezzey","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.40","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sackett et al.’s (2023) focal article asserts that the predictors with the highest criterion-related validity in selection settings are specific to individual jobs and emphasizes the importance of adjusting for range restriction (and attenuation) using study-specific artifact estimates. These positions, along with other recent perspectives on meta-analysis, lead us to reassess the extent to which situational specificity (SS) is worth consideration in organizational selection contexts. In this commentary, we will (a) examine the historical context of both the SS and validity generalization (VG) perspectives, (b) evaluate evidence pertaining to these perspectives, and (c) consider whether it is possible for both perspectives to coexist.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"317 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is it also time to revisit situational specificity?\",\"authors\":\"J. DeSimone, T. Fezzey\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/iop.2023.40\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sackett et al.’s (2023) focal article asserts that the predictors with the highest criterion-related validity in selection settings are specific to individual jobs and emphasizes the importance of adjusting for range restriction (and attenuation) using study-specific artifact estimates. These positions, along with other recent perspectives on meta-analysis, lead us to reassess the extent to which situational specificity (SS) is worth consideration in organizational selection contexts. In this commentary, we will (a) examine the historical context of both the SS and validity generalization (VG) perspectives, (b) evaluate evidence pertaining to these perspectives, and (c) consider whether it is possible for both perspectives to coexist.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"317 - 321\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.40\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.40","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

Sackett等人(2023)的重点文章断言,在选择环境中具有最高标准相关有效性的预测因子是特定于个体工作的,并强调了使用研究特定伪影估计调整范围限制(和衰减)的重要性。这些立场,以及最近对荟萃分析的其他观点,使我们重新评估在组织选择背景下情境特异性(SS)值得考虑的程度。在这篇评论中,我们将(a)研究SS和有效性概括(VG)观点的历史背景,(b)评估与这些观点相关的证据,以及(c)考虑两种观点是否可能共存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Is it also time to revisit situational specificity?
Sackett et al.’s (2023) focal article asserts that the predictors with the highest criterion-related validity in selection settings are specific to individual jobs and emphasizes the importance of adjusting for range restriction (and attenuation) using study-specific artifact estimates. These positions, along with other recent perspectives on meta-analysis, lead us to reassess the extent to which situational specificity (SS) is worth consideration in organizational selection contexts. In this commentary, we will (a) examine the historical context of both the SS and validity generalization (VG) perspectives, (b) evaluate evidence pertaining to these perspectives, and (c) consider whether it is possible for both perspectives to coexist.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
10.10%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice is a peer-reviewed academic journal published on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The journal focuses on interactive exchanges on topics of importance to the science and practice of the field. It features articles that present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas, stimulating dialogue about important issues in the field. Additionally, the journal is indexed and abstracted in Clarivate Analytics SSCI, Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS), ProQuest, PsycINFO, and Scopus.
期刊最新文献
Industrial-organizational psychologists and volunteer work Moving boundaries on what I-O has been, and what I-O can be: The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as an organizing framework Anti-work offers many opportunities for I/O psychologists Best practices for weight at work research Polyculturalism: Diversity incognito or diversity made irrelevant?
×
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