1. 1 Using a Scored Background Questionnaire for Selection: Construct and Criterion-related Validity Frederick P. Morgeson – Michigan State University Matthew H. Reider – Purdue University Michael A. Campion – Purdue University Slides are available at: http://www.msu.edu/~morgeson/

2. 2 In the Beginning  Collect background information  Resumes and application forms  Huge reduction in number of applicants

3. 3 Our Purpose  Comparatively little research  A gap in the literature  Construct and criterion-related validity  Development and validation of scored background questionnaire

4. 4 What’s Been Done?  Application forms  Weighted application blanks  Training & Experience Evaluations

5. 5 What We Did  Developed a scored background questionnaire  Keep it simple  Conducted a job analysis  Key job factors assessed

6. 6 The Background Questionnaire  Questions –Experience in manufacturing and production –Experience with work-related equipment –Experience with physically demanding work –Experience with shift work and overtime –Educational and training background »Demonstrating ability to learn »Manufacturing or business courses »Maintenance or technical courses –Promotion experiences –Experience working in a team –Situations demonstrating creativity or innovation

7. 7 Example Item  What experiences have you had with physically demanding work (e.g., working with your hands, standing or sitting for extended periods on the job, lifting, etc.)? –Company name, title/job duties, years –If you have not had previous employment of this type, have you ever done this type of work in other settings (e.g., farm, work at home, volunteer work, hobbies, etc.)? »Please explain, years

8. 8 How it Was Scored  Supervisors or HR representatives rated the questions  Used a simple 5-point rating scale  Example scale (5) Substantial work experience suggesting he/she can perform physical requirements of jobs. (3) No relevant work experience, but no indication that physical requirements would be a problem. (1) Potential concerns that there may be difficulties meeting physical requirements.

9. 9 Methods  Setting & Participants –Steel mini-mill –96 incumbents  Study context –Development of new selection system –Concurrent validation study –Different supervisors provided predictor/criteria data

10. 10 Predictor and Criterion Measures  Scored background questionnaire –10-item measure,  =.74  Structured Panel Interview –14 situational questions; 14 past behavior questions –Inter-rater reliability =.89;  =.84.  Personal Characteristics Inventory (Barrick & Mount) –Big 5 Personality  Teamwork-KSA Test (Stevens & Campion)  Job performance –10-item measure,  =.97 –Supervisory ratings –Working safely, working efficiently, etc.

11. 11 Results

12. 12 Results Summary  What is the background questionnaire measuring? –Quality of work experiences –General ability –Dependability –Ability to work well with others  What about predicting job performance? –Decent validity –Multiple correlation

13. 13 Conclusions  Good reliability  Related to other predictors  Good validity  Potentially useful screening device