Using General Mental Ability and Personality Traits to Predict Job ...

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 22 Number 4 December 2014

Using General Mental Ability and Personality Traits to Predict Job Performance in Three Chilean Organizations Eduardo Barros*, Edgar E. Kausel**, Felipe Cuadra*** and Daniel A. Díaz**** *School of Business, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Diagonal Las Torres 2640, Santiago 7941169, Chile. [email protected] **Faculty of Economics, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. [email protected] ***Department of Psychology, University College London, London, UK. [email protected] ****EB Consulting, Santiago, Chile. [email protected] Although the field of personnel selection has amounted around 100 years of research, there has been an overrepresentation of American and Western European samples in these studies. In particular, samples from Latin America have been almost entirely absent from industrial and organizational psychology journals. Thus, it is unknown whether welldocumented findings, such as the prediction of job performance based on general mental ability and conscientiousness, replicate in this region. This research intended to address this gap in the literature with three studies conducted in Chilean organizations, using different research designs, and different operationalizations of predictors and criteria. Results are generally consistent with previous studies, showing that conscientiousness and general mental ability significantly predict job performance in these Chilean samples.

1. Introduction

E

bs_bs_banner

mployee performance is a critical factor for organizational success (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). As such, the prediction of job performance is arguably the most important property of a personnel selection method, and both researchers and practitioners have studied how to improve this prediction for almost a century (Farr & Tippins, 2010). A robust finding is that general mental ability (GMA) and conscientiousness are valid predictors of job performance across jobs (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). For example, in two highly cited meta-analyses, Hunter and Hunter (1984) reported a mean criterion validity of .53 for GMA, and Barrick and Mount (1991) found that the validity for conscientiousness was .22. Although these findings are robust, nearly all of these studies have been conducted in North America and Western Europe (Lievens, 2008).

The lack of research in certain geographic areas pervades applied psychology (Oakland, 2004). For example, Shen et al. (2011) analyzed the sample of characteristics of articles included in the Journal of Applied Psychology for the past 10 years and found that only nine samples (.57%) were from the Middle East, three (.19%) from Africa, and zero from Latin America. While this seems to be a worrying trend in American behavioral science as a whole (Arnett, 2008), it is clear that these geographic areas – in particular, Latin America – are not well represented in prestigious journals and books focusing on human resource (HR) management, let alone personnel selection. Ozbilgin (2004) examined the focus of articles included in more than 20 ‘top’ journals on international HR management, and found that only 1% of the articles covered Latin America. Indeed, in a chapter centered on selection research in an international context, Lievens (2008) acknowledged that his review failed to be truly

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA

Predicting Job Performance in Chile international, as he found no published English-language studies in South and Central American countries. The main goal of this article was to report a first investigation on the criterion validity of GMA and conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance in three Latin American (i.e., Chilean) organizations. Chile is considered an emerging economy with a free market orientation that has set a favorable context for several companies, and many of them are following international management trends (Abarca, Majluf & Rodríguez, 1998). However, the quality of HR practices is questionable because of the lack of research and data-driven initiatives (Perez Arrau, Eades, & Wilson, 2012). This bolsters the practical relevance of the present article. We conducted three studies to address this issue. The first two are concurrent validity studies looking at the prediction of supervisor’s ratings of general performance, sales outcomes, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) based on GMA and conscientiousness. Study 3 is a predictive validity study that focuses on GMA as a predictor of job performance.

2. Method 2.1. Study 1: concurrent validation 2.1.1. Participants and procedure Complete data were collected from 253 current occupants of service job positions in a large Chilean organization in the transportation industry. A total of 258 individuals attended the study sessions; however, for various reasons (voluntary opt-out, schedule conflicts, among others), five people left the testing site before completing the required measures (response rate = 98%). These jobs best fit the tasks described for customer service representatives by O*NET (2014). Although the jobs analyzed in this study were not identical, they all required common features such as direct interaction with customers, solving customers’ problems or complaints, computing costs for services requested, and soliciting new or additional services or products, among other tasks. The most similar job in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1997) is that of ‘customer service representatives.’ In terms of job complexity, this corresponds to a medium-complexity level (Hunter, 1980). Participants with complete data were 71.15% women and 28.85% men. The company’s policies did not allow us to obtain additional demographic data1. However, the average age of the total number of employees in service positions in this company is around 35 years of age. The Vice President of Human Resources presented the study to the potential participants in the organization as a mean to improve the selection system of the company. Employees were invited by this executive to

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

433 complete the study’s measures and their participation was explicitly stated as voluntary. All individuals filled the predictor measures during computer-based sessions held for the purpose of the study. The HR area gathered performance data from the most recent performance appraisal records. 2.1.2. Measures Two sets of predictor measures were adapted from selection tools provided for the company by an HR consulting firm based in the United States. The items were selected from a larger set of items developed by the consulting firm and were translated into Spanish using a complete reverse translation procedure. The first instrument was a GMA measure composed of 53 items, measuring verbal, numeric, and reasoning abilities. Internal consistency for this particular sample was α = .82. The second was a self-report instrument composed of 203 items that measured several personality constructs, including four of the Big Five personality factors, although the focus of our research was only on conscientiousness. Internal consistencies for these factors (for this sample) ranged from .66 (agreeableness) to .76 (conscientiousness). The criterion data were provided by the organization based on performance appraisal records. Participants had been rated by their supervisors based on eight items measuring global performance. Each of these items tapped broad competencies of job performance. Examples are ‘service orientation,’ ‘work quality,’ and ‘problem solving.’ Raters indicated the level of performance (1 = low performance; 5 = excellent performance) of each item (competency). Internal consistency was α = .73.

2.2. Study 2: concurrent validation 2.2.1. Participants and procedure Complete data were collected from 156 sales agents (sales representatives) from a large Chilean retail bank. A total of 165 individuals completed the questionnaires; however, for various reasons, nine people left the testing site before completing all the required measures (response rate = 95%). Individuals in this job promoted and sold financial services such as checking accounts, consumer credits, credit cards, and investment funds, among others. Similarly to Study 1, this corresponds to a medium-complexity level (Hunter, 1980). Participants with complete data were 76.92% women, and their mean age was 38.49 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.76). The procedure for collecting the predictor measures was virtually identical to that of Study 1, except that they were paper-and-pencil instead of computer-based. The main difference was how the criteria were col-

International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 22 Number 4 December 2014

434

Eduardo Barros, Edgar E. Kausel, Felipe Cuadra and Daniel A. Díaz

lected. In this case, the sales department provided these indicators of performance, whereas participants received OCB ratings from their supervisors.

pants were hired, supervisors used a new scale to rate job performance as part of an intervention to improve different HR processes within the organization.

2.2.2. Measures GMA was measured using the Spanish version of the Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 2002), a widely used measure of general intelligence in personnel selection contexts. The internal reliability reported in the manual is .88 (Wonderlic, 2002). Conscientiousness was measured using the scale from the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Coefficient alpha for this sample was .87, while the test maker reports .91 (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The organization had systematically collected individual sales data (e.g., sales volume) each month of the year. We used data from the last 6 months. Not all the job positions were identical or sold the exact same products or services; thus, this variable was standardized within job. The average correlation among the six measurements was .46 (α = .78). In addition, the direct supervisors of the participants rated their OCBs observed during the last 6 months, using Lee and Allen’s (2002) 10-item measure. Example items of this measure are ‘Help others who have been absent’ and ‘Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization.’ Supervisors indicated how frequently they engaged in OCBs on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Internal reliability was high (α = .95).

2.3.2. Measures The predictor measure for this study was a GMA measure named Resolución de problemas (RP-30). This instrument was created by a Spanish test maker (Seisdedos, 2002) and is composed of 30 items requiring various cognitive abilities. The items increase in difficulty as the respondent progresses on the test. The internal reliability has been estimated by the test maker using the splithalf Spearman–Brown formula, obtaining values from .91 to .95; no information has been reported in terms of correlation with other GMA tests (Seisdedos, 2002). We used two criteria in the study. First, the organization provided data from the regular performance appraisal for this job position. These were supervisor’s ratings, based on a general performance scale composed of 12 items. Examples of the items are: ‘This worker performs most of the assigned tasks effectively and within an adequate timeframe;’ ‘. . . executes the functions and tasks of the job carefully and according to the expected standards’; ‘. . . collaborates and works well with his/her work team’; ‘. . . follows the organization’s explicit rules and norms.’ The supervisors indicated their level of agreement with these statements (1 = strongly disagree; 100 = strongly agree). Second, the direct supervisors were asked to use an overall performance scale that included three 7-point items anchored as follows − Item 1: 1–2 = does not meet standards for job performance; 3–5 = meets standards for job performance; and 6–7 = exceeds standards for job performance. Item 2: 1–2 = performs at a low level compared with others of the same rank; 3–5 = performs at an average level; 6–7 = performs at a high level compared with others of the same rank; and Item 3: 1–2 = contributes less to unit effectiveness than most members of the work unit; 3–5 = makes an average contribution to unit effectiveness; 6–7 = contributes more to unit effectiveness than most members of the work unit. This measure was previously used by Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994). Our Spanish version of overall performance, created using a reverse translation procedure, showed a high internal reliability (α = .93).

2.3. Study 3: predictive validity 2.3.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 103 job applicants, who were eventually selected, for an administrative job position in a public Chilean organization. Tasks included in these jobs were: examining numeric information presented in reports, applying norms and regulations to written documents and elaborating reports with findings and conclusions, among others. The most similar type of job in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1997) is the category ‘accountants, auditors, and related occupations.’ In terms of Hunter’s (1980) classification, these types of jobs should fit in the high-complexity category. The sample was conformed by 60.20% women. Their average age was 29.77 years (SD = 4.66). The first phase of the data collection was part of the regular selection process for this job position. The criteria data were collected at two different times. At Time 1, approximately 1 year after participants were hired, they received an evaluation as part of the firm’s performance appraisal process (with administrative purposes). At Time 2, approximately 2 years after partici-


3. Results 3.1. Results: Study 1 Means, SDs, and correlations of the study variables are shown in Table 1. Inspection of Table 1 reveals that the bivariate correlation between GMA and job performance is significant (r = .16, p < .05). In addition, conscientiousness was also positively related to job performance;


Predicting Job Performance in Chile

435

Table 1. Means, SDs, correlations, and reliabilities of major variables, Study 1

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Emotional stability Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness GMA Job performance Gender

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3.85 3.64 3.95 3.86 0.42 3.12 1.71

.50 .45 .44 .43 .12 .31 .45

(.76) .30** .38** .51** .14* .06 .01

(.68) .34** .38** .02 .08 −.03

(.76) .31** .15* .17** .03

(.66) .02 .02 .14*

(.82) .16* −.11

(.73) .01

–

Note: N = 253. For gender, 1 = male, 2 = female. Correlations with ‘**’ are significant at p < .01; correlations with ‘*’ are significant at the p < .05. Reliability coefficients are presented on the diagonal. GMA = general mental ability; SD = standard deviation.

Table 2. Regression analysis summary for personality factors and GMA predicting job performance, Study 1 Variable

B

SE(B)

β

p

Intercept Emotional stability Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness GMA

2.32 .00 .03 .13 −.04 .42

.31 .31 .06 .06 .06 .20

.00 .04 .15* −.05 .13*

.00 .99 .59 .04 .56 .04

Note: When all personality traits were included, R2 = .03, N = 253, p = .11. When GMA and all personality traits were included, R2 = .05, N = 253, p < .05. * = p < .05. GMA = general mental ability; SE = standard error.

in fact, the size of the uncorrected correlation in the present study (r = .17; p < .01) is similar to the uncorrected mean correlation (r = .15) found by Barrick and Mount (1991). None of the other measured factors of the Big Five correlated significantly with job performance. We also conducted a multiple regression analysis, including the four personality factors and the GMA measure as predictors. These results can be found in Table 2. The main findings are consistent with those emanating from the bivariate correlations; after controlling for all the personality factors included in the study, conscientiousness (β = .15, standard error [SE](B) = .06, p < .05) and GMA (β = .13, SE(B) = .20, p < .05) remained as significant predictors of job performance.

3.2. Results: Study 2 The results partially supported the hypothesized relationships (see Table 3). Contrary to our expectation, we did not find a significant relationship between GMA and job performance (r = −.10; not significant [n.s.]). However, the results involving personality factors showed significant relationships in the anticipated direction. First, conscientiousness correlated with hard measures of job performance (r = .18, p < .05). Second, conscientiousness was significantly associated with OCBs (r = .25, p < .05). In addition to the bivariate correlations, when the two predictors of this study were


included in a regression to predict performance (see Table 4), only conscientiousness was significant (β = .20, SE(B) = .11, p < .05).

3.3. Results: Study 3 In this study, the only predictor studied was GMA (measured with the Spanish-developed RP-30); however, two criteria were used. As shown in Table 5, GMA correlated significantly with both supervisors’ performance ratings: the ones conducted as part of the regular performance appraisal of the organization (r = .35; p < .01) and those specifically requested for research purposes (r = .22 p < .05). A Steiger’s (1980) Z-test revealed that these correlations were not significantly different, (Z = .92, n.s.). We also were able to compute the correlations correcting for range restriction. We received information from 1449 individuals who were hired and not hired by the organization in a span of 2 years. The GMA mean and SD for this unrestricted sample was M = 48.71, SD = 25.70; for the restricted sample, M = 70.68, SD = 21.34. The correlations corrected for direct range restriction between GMA and job performance at T1, and job performance at T2 (using Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken (2003) formulas) were R = .41 and R = .26, respectively.

4. General discussion The three studies presented in this article are complementary. Studies 1 and 2 had conscientiousness as a predictor of job performance; Study 3 excluded this personality factor because it was not part of the selection process of the organization. GMA was included in the three studies. Job performance was operationalized in different ways. Results regarding conscientiousness are quite consistent. This factor worked in these Chilean samples in a manner similar to that of previous research (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991). Conscientiousness correlated with supervisors’ ratings of job performance, as well as with more objective measures of sales performance; in addition, it was significantly related to OCBs. This makes a


436


Table 3. Means, SDs, correlations, and reliabilities of major variables, Study 2

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Conscientiousness GMA (Wonderlic) Sales volume OCBs Gender

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

4.14 19.08 .00 3.75 1.77

.71 4.54 1.00 .75 .42

(.87) .12 .18* .25** .05

(.88) −.10 .04 −.08

(.78) .15 .05

(.95) .06

–

Note: N = 156. For gender, 1 = male, 2 = female. Sales volume was standardized within job. Correlations with ‘**’ are significant at p < .01; correlations with ‘*’ are significant at the p < .05. Reliability coefficients are presented on the diagonal. GMA = general mental ability; OCB = organizational citizenship behaviour; SE = standard error.

Table 4. Regression analysis summary for conscientiousness and GMA predicting job performance, Study 2 Variable

B

SE(B)

β

p

Intercept Conscientiousness GMA (Wonderlic)

−.59 .28 −.03

.56 .11 .02

.20* −.12

.29 .02 .13

Note: R2 = .05 (N = 156, p < .05). * = p < .05. GMA = general mental ability; SE = standard error.

stronger case for the relevance of using this personality factor not only when predicting task performance (even with ‘objective’ outcomes), but also when contextual elements of performance, such as OCBs, are the focus of interest. The case of GMA is more open to debate. Studies 1 and 3 found the expected positive correlations between GMA and performance; in Study 2 the correlation between these two variables was nonsignificant. This may appear as a troubling result given that the significant correlation has been found in a myriad of work contexts and job types (Schmidt, 2002; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). However, in meta-analyses that have specifically focused on sales jobs, the results have diverged from these findings. In particular, Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, and Roth (1998) found that the unadjusted correlation coefficient for GMA and job performance is only .02 (credibility interval includes zero) when sales volume was the criterion. Therefore, nonsignificant results for single studies using GMA as the predictor and sales volume as the sole criterion might be more the rule than the exception. As Hausknecht and Langevin (2010) have stated ‘Cognitive ability testing is somewhat of an enigma in the context of service and sales occupations . . . research that is specific to service and sales occupations yields mixed results’ (p. 772). Of particular note was Study 3. The predictive nature of this study allowed for the observation of the expected association between the variables over time. Research on the effects of time on predictive validity has been relatively scarce. However, for the most part, this research has concluded that the majority of coefficients have significant decrements over time (Keil &


Cortina, 2001). The first significant correlation between GMA and job performance was obtained from supervisor ratings a year after the predictor was measured (during the first performance appraisal for those employees). In the case of the second criterion, the performance ratings were obtained on average 2 years after the employees were evaluated during the selection process of the organization. The observed correlations were slightly different; however, they support the generalizability of criterion-related validity of GMA throughout time. The fact that GMA is a predictor of job performance in a Latin American country is relevant for various reasons. First, it replicates results systematically obtained in the United States and in Western Europe (Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Salgado, 2010). It was valuable to demonstrate in the European scenario – as in the United States – that GMA and performance were significantly related a decade ago (Salgado et al., 2003). Likewise, it is relevant today to assess the same relationship in a region characterized by larger differences – compared with the United States – in terms of culture, average economic development, and quality of education. Indeed, these results seem to provide further support for the well-known validity generalization hypothesis rather than the situational specificity hypothesis regarding GMA in personnel selection (for a detailed discussion, see Schmidt & Hunter, 1984). Second, the scarce descriptive research available in Latin America (almost exclusively published in local journals in Portuguese and in Spanish) suggests that at least in some countries, the use of GMA instruments is atypical (Baumgartl, Pagano, & Lacerda, 2010). Hence, results like the ones presented in this study may foster the use of GMA measures, potentially replacing methods lacking substantial validity. This is important considering some studies on the use of selection procedures in the region that suggest a preference for personality testing based on projective methods, which for the most part are not supported by evidence (Pereira, Primi, & Cobêro, 2003). Finally, showing that the quality of selection methods can be tested in Latin American samples could contribute to stimulate a more general evidence-based approach to HR management in this region.


Predicting Job Performance in Chile

437

Table 5. Means, SDs, correlations, and reliabilities variables, Study 3

1. 2. 3. 4.

GMA (RP-30) Job performance, Time 1 Job performance, Time 2 Gender

M

SD

1

2

3

4

70.68 94.32 5.59 1.60

21.34 2.75 .86 .49

(.91) .35** .22* −.15

– .53** .17

(.93) .16

–

Note: N = 103. For gender, 1 = male, 2 = female. Correlations with ‘**’ are significant at p < .01; correlations with ‘*’ are significant at the p < .05. Reliability coefficients are presented on the diagonal. Reliability for RP-30 is based on test maker’s reports (Seisdedos, 2002). Job performance at Times 1 and 2 were measured with different instruments; in addition, at Time 1, the performance appraisal had administrative purposes, whereas at Time 2 it did not. The vast majority of supervisors made both ratings in Study 3, but not all of them. GMA = general mental ability; RP-30 = problem solving; SD = standard deviation.

5. Conclusion These results are comparable with studies conducted in the United States and Western Europe. We have no reason to believe that GMA’s criterion-related validity findings like the ones presented here should be notoriously different in other countries of the region, given that most of them share crucial features (e.g., language, cultural roots, educational achievements, among others; Hofstede, 2001); nonetheless, this assertion should be further proven. The contribution of this research does not come from the originality of the relationships tested in the studies, but it is ingrained in the context of the findings. Latin America as a region has essentially been untouched by selection and assessment researchers. This is a fairly small, yet pioneer, effort to make this region of the world more salient in the selection and assessment research map.

Acknowledgements The three studies included in this research had the help of several people. We deeply appreciate their contributions. However, we have to specially thank the collaboration provided in the data collection for Study 3 by Isabel Araos, Juan Francisco Cantillana, Daniel Salazar, and Mario Schellman, who were at the time pursuing their Master’s degree in Human Resource Management – Organizational Behavior at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. The inclusion of that study would have been impossible without their work.

Note 1.

Other demographic data, such as race, are for the most part never included in organizational surveys in Chile.

References Abarca, N., Majluf, N., & Rodríguez, D. (1998). Identifying management in Chile: A behavioural approach. International Studies of Management & Organisation, 28, 18–37.


Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30. Baumgartl, V. O., Pagano, A. P., & Lacerda, J. (2010). A utilização de testes psicológicos em organizações de Minas Gerais. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia, 62, 178–186. Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the ‘strength’ of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203– 221. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Neo PI-R professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, 396, 653–665. Farr, J. L., & Tippins, N. T. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of employee selection. New York: Routledge. Hausknecht, J. P., & Langevin, A. M. (2010). Selection for service and sales jobs. In J. L. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 765–779). New York: Routledge. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Hunter, J. E. (1980). Test validation for 12,000 jobs: An application of synthetic validity and validity generalization to the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, DC: US Employment Service. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98. Keil, C. T., & Cortina, J. M. (2001). Degradation of validity over time: A test and extension of Ackerman’s model. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 673–697. Lee, K., & Allen, N. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142. Lievens, F. (2008). Research on selection in an international context: Current status and future directions. In M. M. Harris (Ed.), Handbook of research in international human


438


resources management (pp. 107–123). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475– 480. O*NET OnLine. National Center for O*NET Development. 43-4051.00. Available at http://www.onetonline.org/link/ summary/43-4051.00 (accessed 13 August 2014). Oakland, T. (2004). Use of educational and psychological tests internationally. Applied Psychology, 53, 157–172. Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Salgado, J. F. (2010). Cognitive abilities. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 255–276). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ozbilgin, M. (2004). ‘International’ human resource management: Academic parochialism in editorial boards of the ‘top’ 22 journals on international human resource management. Personnel Review, 33, 205–221. Pereira, F. M., Primi, R., & Cobêro, C. (2003). Validade de testes utilizados em seleção de pessoal segundo recrutadores. Psicologia: Teoria e Prática, 5, 83–98. Perez Arrau, G., Eades, E., & Wilson, J. (2012). Managing human resources in the Latin American context: The case of Chile. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 3133–3150. Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., De Fruyt, F., & Rolland, J. P. (2003). A meta-analytic study of general mental ability validity for different occupations in the


European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1068– 1081. Schmidt, F. L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187–210. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1984). A within setting empirical test of the situational specificity hypothesis in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 37, 317–326. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. Seisdedos, N. (2002). RP-30: Resolución de problemas: manual (No. 248). TEA Ediciones. Shen, W., Kiger, T. B., Davies, S. E., Rasch, R. L., Simon, K. M., & Ones, D. S. (2011). Samples in applied psychology: Over a decade of research in review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1055–1064. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251. US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (1997). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th ed.) Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, III, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586–597. Wonderlic, I. (2002). Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam user’s manual. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic.
