Search results

This chapter provides a contemporary view of state-of-the science research and thinking done in the areas of selection and classification. It takes as a starting point the observation that the world of work is undergoing important changes that are likely to result in different occupational and organizational structures. In this context, we review recent research on criteria, especially models of job performance, followed by sections on predictors, including ability, personality, vocational interests, biodata, and situational judgment tests. The paper also discusses person-organization fit models, as alternatives or complements to the traditional person-job fit paradigm.

Studies a large midwestern police agency to find out whether female applicants failed the physical ability test more often than male applicants, whether the tasks were job related or whether there was violation of the “four‐fifths” rule of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and whether the test measured critical tasks. Finds that the test has an adverse effect on women and is not job related.

This paper presents the case for personnel systems based on maximizing the differential information gathered about individual abilities and their match to jobs. In the context of assignment to multiple jobs, such systems are shown to be more effective than those based on the currently dominant paradigm of maximizing predictive validity. The latter paradigm favours the measurement of general cognitive ability over multiple specific aptitudes. Recent differential approaches use computer simulation modelling of alternative hypothetical systems to evaluate potential efficiency. The paper reviews the theoretical background on the structure of human abilities which has led to these contrasting approaches to personnel system design, and presents evidence, based on the US Army selection and classification system, in support of the alternative approach. Individual test/aptitude profiles improve the efficiency of personnel selection and classification as well as academic, vocational and career counselling. They also provide a broader, potentially fairer definition of talent than a unidimensional indicator of cognitive ability, and a foundation for the design of learning and decision environments around learner and user profiles.

This study compared the results of self-report and ability-based tests of problem-solving abilities of 144 hospitality managers working at hotels and restaurants through an online survey. In the first stage of the study, the managers were asked to fill in the self-report problem-solving ability scale by Tesone et al. (2010). In the second stage of the study, the managers were asked to respond to questions in a case-study-based problem-solving test.

Problem-solving is a key aspect of business process management. This study aims to investigate and compare hospitality managers' actual and claimed (self-report) problem-solving abilities. A lack of unawareness of the actual level of skills may be an important problem as managers who tend to have inflated self-efficacy beliefs are less likely to allocate resources, e.g. time, money and effort, to develop a particular skill or ability they lack. They are also more likely to take risks regarding that skill or ability.

The results of the study showed that there was a major difference between the results of the self-report test and the actual test. This meant that the managers who participated in the study had inflated self-efficacy beliefs regarding their problem-solving abilities, i.e. they operated under the influence of the Dunning–Kruger effect. The study showed that self-report tests that are commonly used in businesses in recruitment and promotion may not provide a correct level of people's abilities. In general, managers who have inflated self-efficacy beliefs are less likely to be interested in developing a particular skill due to the overconfidence arising from their inflated self-efficacy beliefs. The study showed that managers were less likely to allocate resources, e.g. time, money and effort, to develop a particular skill they lack and are more likely to take risks regarding that particular skill.

Managers in the hospitality industry appear to lack problem solving-abilities. While the hospitality managers assigned high marks for their problem-solving abilities in a self-report problem-solving scale and appeared to be performing significantly good overall in problem-solving, they performed poorly in an actual problem solving exercise. It is recommended that businesses rather than depending on self-report problem-solving scales, they should resort to ability-based scales or exercises that actually measure managers' problem-solving abilities. Also, as managers who had formal tourism and hospitality education performed poorly, tourism and hospitality programme managers at universities are recommend to review their syllabi and curriculum so as to help support their graduates' problem-solving abilities.

The study is original as no previous study compared managers' problem-solving abilities by using self-report and ability-based tests. The study has implications for researchers in terms of developing knowledge, ability and skill-based scales in the future. The study has also significant practical implications for the practitioners.

This study aims to investigate the differences in spatial ability between students with a math learning disability and their normal peers.

To investigate these differences two groups, (60 students with a math learning disability) and (60 normal students) from fifth grade with a mean age (10.6 years) were administered with spatial ability test along with an IQ test. Students with a math learning disability were chosen using measures of the following: math learning disability questionnaire developed from learning disability evaluation scale – renormed second edition (LDES-R²) (McCarney and Arthaud, 2007) and the Quick Neurological Screening Test (Mutti et al., 2012), in addition to their marks in formal math tests in school.

Comparison between the two groups in four aspects of spatial ability resulted in obvious differences in each aspect of spatial ability (spatial relations, mental rotation, spatial visualization and spatial orientation); these differences were clear, especially in mental rotation and spatial visualization.

This paper contributes to gain more insights into the characteristics of pupils with a math learning disability, the nature of spatial abilities and its effect on a math learning disability. Moreover, the results suggest spatial ability to be an important diagnose factor to distinguish and identify students with a math learning disability, and that spatial ability is strongly relevant to math achievement. The results have significant implications for success in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics domain.

Results from high‐stakes tests of intelligence are used everyday to make decisions that impact the lives of individuals and families. Although many clinicians know how to calculate test scores, few have a firm understanding of the construct intelligence, how tests measure intelligence, and more importantly, how results from intelligence tests may be used to develop client specific recommendations and interventions.

Knowledge about cognitive operations and processes (COPs) required for success (1=correct, 0=incorrect) on test items or learning tasks is very important for in-depth understanding of the nature of student performance and the development of valid instruments for its measurement. A key problem in obtaining such knowledge is the validation of hypothesized COPs and their role in the measurement properties of test items. To provide validation feedback for both normally achieving students and students with learning disabilities, it is important to obtain information on the validity of the COPs for students at different ability levels and individual test items (or tasks). To address this issue, the present chapter introduces a method of estimating the probability for correct performance on individual COPs at fixed ability levels thus providing validity information across ability levels and individual test items. When item response theory (IRT) estimates of the item parameters are known (e.g., in a test bank of IRT calibrated items or published research), the proposed validation method does not require information about raw (or ability) scores of examinees. This method is illustrated for algebra test items and reading comprehension test items calibrated in IRT.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the influence of different Specialized Physical Education (SPE) teaching programs on the level of students’ physical abilities.

In the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies (ACPS), one of the teaching program goals is an improvement of student's physical abilities level. Since the establishment of ACPS, three SPE programs have been implemented differing in number of class hours. Five different tests were used: “Isometric dead lift,” “Hand grip,” the Long jump (LJ), the Sit-up test and the Cooper test.

Multivariate analysis of variance results indicated a statistically significant difference between the programs in tests LJ, Sit-up and Cooper. The Bonferroni test showed differences between all three programs. The discriminant analysis showed that both discriminant factors are statistically significant. The greatest factor in the first function was the test LJ, while the greatest factor in the second discriminant function was the Sit-up test.

The importance of research was the fact that by determining the changes of students’ physical abilities level, the authors can evaluate the effectiveness of various SPE programs. Results could be used in planning standards, selection and control of the achieved physical abilities level.

Changes could contribute to the positive effects of the educational process on improvement of students’ physical abilities.

This is one of the few studies which examine the influence of quantitatively different teaching programs on the level of physical abilities within a period of 15 years.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an insight into the relationship between students’ spatial ability and their university entrance score (Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank [ATAR]). The ATAR provides entry into university studies but does not necessary provide a good measure of students’ spatial skills. Spatial abilities are fundamental to success in many design courses. This paper aims to show whether the ATAR is a good predictor of spatial skills and considers the implications of this.

Students entering university design courses in architecture were tested three times during their first year using a three-dimensional (3D) Ability Test (3DAT), an online psychometric test of 3D spatial ability. The students’ results in 3DAT were then compared to students’ ATAR scores using a Pearson’s correlation test were also conducted to assess the relationship between ATAR and spatial performance.

There was no correlation between ATAR and spatial performance. Therefore, there was no relationship between an individual’s ATAR and their spatial performance upon entering university.

Participants were required to select their ATAR from ranges, i.e. 71-80, 81-90 and 91-100, which meant their exact ATAR was not recorded. This meant that the participants were clustered, making it difficult to establish a linear relationship that was a true reflection of the population.

Initiatives to support students entering design courses may be necessary to compensate for the range of spatial skills students possess when entering university because of their school experiences.

Individuals who have strong spatial skills are able to perform spatial problems faster and more efficiently than those with weak spatial skills. High spatial performance has been shown relate to performance in areas such as mathematics science technology and design.

This paper fulfils the need to better understand the diversity of spatial abilities students have on entering design courses.