Joint relation of experience and ability with job performance: test of three hypotheses

Article Abstract:

Data from four different jobs (N=1,474) were used to evaluate three hypotheses of the joint relation of job experience and general mental ability to job performance as measured by (a) work sample measures, (b) job knowledge measures, and (c) supervisory ratings of job performance. The divergence hypothesis predicts an increasing difference and the convergence hypothesis predicts a decreasing difference in the job performance of high- and low-mental-ability employees as employees gain increasing experience on the job. The noninteractive hypothesis, by contrast, predicts that the performance difference will be constant over time. For all three measures of job performance, results supported the noninteractive hypothesis. Also, consistent with the noninteractive hypothesis, correlational analyses showed essentially constant validities for general mental ability (measured earlier) out to 5 years of experience on the job. In addition to their theoretical implications, these findings have an important practical implication: They indicate that the concerns that employment test validities may decrease over time, complicating estimates of selection utility, are probably unwarranted. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Analysis, Statistical sampling, Sampling (Statistics)

---

Job experience correlates of job performance

Article Abstract:

Although measures of job experience are frequently-used screening devices in the selection of employees, personnel psychologists have devoted little attention to their usefulness. This article quantitatively summarizes data on the relation between job experience and job performance from a total sample of 16,058. The correlation between job experience and job performance was found to be moderated by two variables: length of experience and job complexity. The highest correlations were obtained in populations with low mean levels of job experience and for jobs that place low levels of cognitive demands on employees. Results appear to be consistent with the causal model of job performance proposed by Schmidt, Hunter, and Outerbridge (1968). (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Work measurement

---

Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance

Article Abstract:

An analysis of 1,474 job positions previously described in studies performed by other researchers indicates that mean job experience is between two and three years, that job experience varies substantially from job to job, and that job experience can have a significant effect on job knowledge, which in turn affects supervisory performance ratings. Job experience is also demonstrated to have a substantial, though indirect, effect on work sample performance. This analysis suggests that supervisory ratings are more often based on assessments of workers' job knowledge than on supervisors' sampling of work performed.

Psychological aspects, Employee performance appraisals, Knowledge, Theory of, Epistemology, Performance appraisals, Labor productivity

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Organizational commitment and job performance: it's the nature of the commitment that counts. A multi-rater assessment of organizational commitment: are self-reported measures biased?
• Abstracts: Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: a comparison of multiple data sources

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.