Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance

Meta-analysis of the cumulative research on various predictors of job performance showed that for entry-level jobs there was no predictor with validity equal to that of ability, which had a mean validity of .53. For selection on the basis of current job performance, the work sample test, with mean validity of .54, was slightly better. For federal entry-level jobs, substitution of an alternative predictor would cost from $3.12 (job tryout) to $15.89 billion/year (age). Hiring on ability had a utility of $15.61 billion/year but affected minority groups adversely. Hiring on ability by quotas would decrease utility by 5%. A 3rd strategy--using a low cutoff score--would decrease utility by 83%. Using other predictors in conjunction with ability tests might improve validity and reduce adverse impact, but there is as yet no database for studying this possibility. (89 ref)