促进军事训练学校的包容性招募和选拔:入学豁免与复试。

IF 9.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Applied Psychology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1037/apl0001147
Daniel McNeish, Denis Dumas, Yixiao Dong, Donna Duellberg
{"title":"促进军事训练学校的包容性招募和选拔:入学豁免与复试。","authors":"Daniel McNeish, Denis Dumas, Yixiao Dong, Donna Duellberg","doi":"10.1037/apl0001147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is high-level interest in diversifying workforces, which has led organizations-including the U.S. Armed Forces-to reevaluate recruiting and selection practices. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has encountered particular difficulties in diversifying its workforce, and it relies mainly on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) for assigning active-duty recruits to one of 19 specialized training schools. When recruits' scores fall below ASVAB entrance standards, the USCG sometimes offers admission waivers. Alternatively, recruits can retest until their ASVAB scores meet the entrance standard. Retesting has shown mixed results in the personnel selection literature, so our main interest is to determine whether retesting or waivers best support USCG recruits' training school outcomes, especially for recruits identifying as an underrepresented minority (URM). We use data from 16,624 USCG recruits entering between 2013 and 2021 and fit augmented inverse propensity weighted models to assess differences in training outcomes by pathway to admission while accounting for self-selection into pathways. Our analyses found (a) no difference in training outcomes between recruits who qualified from their initial scores and recruits who retested, (b) recruits who received waivers were less likely to complete training school on time and spent more time in remedial training when they failed training school compared to those who retested, and (c) improvement in training outcomes for retesting over waivers was larger for recruits identifying as an URM. Results suggest that retesting may be an effective strategy for workforce diversification and for improving outcomes among recruits identifying as an URM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"415-436"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Promoting inclusive recruiting and selection into military training schools: Admission waivers versus retesting.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel McNeish, Denis Dumas, Yixiao Dong, Donna Duellberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/apl0001147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There is high-level interest in diversifying workforces, which has led organizations-including the U.S. Armed Forces-to reevaluate recruiting and selection practices. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has encountered particular difficulties in diversifying its workforce, and it relies mainly on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) for assigning active-duty recruits to one of 19 specialized training schools. When recruits' scores fall below ASVAB entrance standards, the USCG sometimes offers admission waivers. Alternatively, recruits can retest until their ASVAB scores meet the entrance standard. Retesting has shown mixed results in the personnel selection literature, so our main interest is to determine whether retesting or waivers best support USCG recruits' training school outcomes, especially for recruits identifying as an underrepresented minority (URM). We use data from 16,624 USCG recruits entering between 2013 and 2021 and fit augmented inverse propensity weighted models to assess differences in training outcomes by pathway to admission while accounting for self-selection into pathways. Our analyses found (a) no difference in training outcomes between recruits who qualified from their initial scores and recruits who retested, (b) recruits who received waivers were less likely to complete training school on time and spent more time in remedial training when they failed training school compared to those who retested, and (c) improvement in training outcomes for retesting over waivers was larger for recruits identifying as an URM. Results suggest that retesting may be an effective strategy for workforce diversification and for improving outcomes among recruits identifying as an URM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"415-436\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001147\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001147","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对劳动力多样化很感兴趣,这促使包括美国武装部队在内的组织重新评估招聘和选拔做法。美国海岸警卫队(USCG)在劳动力多样化方面遇到了特别的困难,它主要依靠武装部队职业能力倾向测试(ASVAB)将现役新兵分配到19所专业培训学校中的一所。当新兵的分数低于ASVAB入学标准时,USCG有时会提供入学豁免。或者,新兵可以重新测试,直到他们的ASVAB分数达到入学标准。重新测试在人员选拔文献中显示出喜忧参半的结果,因此我们的主要兴趣是确定重新测试或豁免是否最能支持USCG新兵的培训学校成绩,尤其是对于被认定为代表性不足的少数族裔(URM)的新兵。我们使用了2013年至2021年间进入的16624名USCG新兵的数据,并拟合了增强的反向倾向加权模型,以评估进入途径的训练结果差异,同时考虑到进入途径的自我选择。我们的分析发现:(a)从初始成绩合格的新兵和重新测试的新兵之间的训练结果没有差异,(b)与重新测试的相比,获得豁免的新兵不太可能按时完成训练学校,并且在训练学校不合格时花更多时间进行补救训练,以及(c)对于被认定为URM的新兵来说,重新测试豁免的训练结果的改善更大。结果表明,重新测试可能是一种有效的策略,可以实现劳动力多样化,并改善被认定为URM的新兵的结果。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
Promoting inclusive recruiting and selection into military training schools: Admission waivers versus retesting.

There is high-level interest in diversifying workforces, which has led organizations-including the U.S. Armed Forces-to reevaluate recruiting and selection practices. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has encountered particular difficulties in diversifying its workforce, and it relies mainly on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) for assigning active-duty recruits to one of 19 specialized training schools. When recruits' scores fall below ASVAB entrance standards, the USCG sometimes offers admission waivers. Alternatively, recruits can retest until their ASVAB scores meet the entrance standard. Retesting has shown mixed results in the personnel selection literature, so our main interest is to determine whether retesting or waivers best support USCG recruits' training school outcomes, especially for recruits identifying as an underrepresented minority (URM). We use data from 16,624 USCG recruits entering between 2013 and 2021 and fit augmented inverse propensity weighted models to assess differences in training outcomes by pathway to admission while accounting for self-selection into pathways. Our analyses found (a) no difference in training outcomes between recruits who qualified from their initial scores and recruits who retested, (b) recruits who received waivers were less likely to complete training school on time and spent more time in remedial training when they failed training school compared to those who retested, and (c) improvement in training outcomes for retesting over waivers was larger for recruits identifying as an URM. Results suggest that retesting may be an effective strategy for workforce diversification and for improving outcomes among recruits identifying as an URM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
17.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
期刊最新文献
Prospects for reducing group mean differences on cognitive tests via item selection strategies. Self-promotion in entrepreneurship: A driver for proactive adaptation. Coping with work-nonwork stressors over time: A person-centered, multistudy integration of coping breadth and depth. A person-centered approach to behaving badly at work: An examination of workplace deviance patterns. How perceived lack of benevolence harms trust of artificial intelligence management.
×
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