Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

12 Evaluation of Economic Claims
Pages 235-250

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 235...
... that Hunter and Schmidt used to estimate how much an individual employer would gain by using ability tests to select workers. The formula that Hunter and Schmidt derive to measure the gains from using ability testing is taken from Brogden (19461: 235
From page 236...
... (A) , where G = the dollar gain per worker per year due to hiring in order of test score rather than randomly, the correlation between test score and productivity, s = the standard deviation of yearly productivity in dollars among workers in the applicant pool, and A = the average test score of those applicants selected, when test scores are standardized to have mean O and variance 1 in the applicant pool.
From page 237...
... The second number is the standard deviation of worker productivity, which Hunter estimates to be 40 percent of average wages. This figure is based on six empirical studies that covered clerks, nursers aides, grocery clerks, adding machine operators, and radial drill-press operators, with estimated standard deviations of 20 percent, 15 percent, 15 percent, 10 percent, 10 percent, and 25 percent (Hunter and Schmidt, 1982: Table 7.1~.
From page 238...
... Second, Brogden's formula measures the gains to an employer from using ability tests, under the assumption that, without the tests, hiring is random. Hunter asserts that the counseling used by the Employment Service instead of the test "is equivalent to random selection" (U.S.
From page 239...
... To achieve a selection ratio of 1 in 10, it would have needed 40 million applicants, the top 4 million test scorers being placed. The figures for 1986-1987 were 3.2 million placements of 6.9 million referrals for 19.2 million applicants, a ratio of 1 in 6 (and perhaps 1 in 4 would be more reasonable, because 7 million of the 192 million were unemployment insurance claimants legally obliged to register)
From page 240...
... If one accepts the committee's more cautious estimates of the first two values in the Brogden formula, and if the Employment Service referred in order of test score and the employers hired in order of test score, the economic gain by Brogden's rule would be: G= .2 x 20 x 1.40= 5.6%. This would lead to an estimated dollar gain, in 1980, of $13 billion as opposed to Hunter's $80 billion.
From page 241...
... Such dramatic claims of dollar gains have been proposed and given a credence perhaps not originally intended that we feel compelled to demonstrate that a careful critique of the assumptions and the numbers would lead many experts to very different, and much more modest, estimates. Our ambivalence stems from a reluctance to do anything to encourage further use of dollar estimates in Employment Service literature.
From page 242...
... ~- ~7 Economic Gains Based on the Hunter and Schmidt Job-Matching Model In job matching, individuals are assigned to jobs to maximize overall productivity. In the simplest case, when there is one predictor for each of several jobs, gains over random assignment occur only if the quantity validity x standard deviation of productivity varies over the different jobs.
From page 243...
... The standard deviation of productivity is assumed proportional to average productivity in the job. Thus the optimal classification assigns higherability workers to the higher-wage jobs, for which their expected productivity is higher because the standard deviation of productivity in dollars is higher.
From page 244...
... Finally, the correlation between spatial and perceptual ability is assumed to be .16. The workers are assigned in the second model as follows: first, those scoring highest on cognitive ability are assigned to the managementprofessional group; then, of those remaining, the highest scorers on spatial plus cognitive ability are assigned to the skilled trades; of those remaining, the highest scorers on perceptual plus cognitive ability are assigned to clerical work; and the remainder go to semiskilled-unskilled labor.
From page 245...
... We do not have a classification of jobs that lends itself to job matching, so the gains from the multivariate model are only theoretical.
From page 246...
... The most reasonable course would seem to be to regard correlation with supervisor ratings as the best available estimate of the correlation between test scores and productivity. However, those who use these numbers to evaluate potential economic gains should be aware of the uncertain scientific base on which their estimates rest.
From page 247...
... , written by John Hunter, contends that a potential increase in work force productivity of $79.36 billion per year would accrue if the 4 million placements made by the Employment Service system were based on top-down referral from GATE test scores. Our evaluation of the potential economic effects of the VG-GATB Referral System included study of the work of labor economists as well as the utility analysis developed in recent years by psychologists.
From page 248...
... Given the primitive state of knowledge about the aggregate economic effects of better personnel selection, we recommend that Employment Service officials refrain from making dollar estimates of the gains that would result from test-based selection.
From page 249...
... Chapter 14 is a summary of the committee's central recommendations: it recapitulates the committee's statements on operational use of the VG-GATB system, methods of referring applicants to jobs, options for reporting GATE scores to employers and to job seekers, promotion of the VG-GATB system, research on its effects, and action with regard to veterans and people with handicapping conditions.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.