Search

Technology‐enabled recruitment and selection technologies, such as chatbots, assessment games, and asynchronous video interviews, are becoming more widely used. However, their impact on people with disabilities is frequently ignored; this has potentially significant implications for the perceived fairness of hiring decisions. We advance eight theoretical propositions on the positive and negative implications of technology‐enabled recruitment and selection technologies for applicant reactions of people with disabilities. Our propositions are based on three key design features of these technologies: separation in time and space, automated administration, and automated evaluation. We provide recommendations for future research and discuss practical implications for the use of advanced technology in recruitment and selection. Practitioner points: Organizations are increasingly using technology‐enabled recruitment and selection tools such as chatbots, assessment games, and asynchronous video interviews to recruit and select employees, without considering how these technologies can affect people with disabilities.We consider the positive and negative impacts of these technologies on the experiences of people with disabilities, with particular attention to applicant reactions.We offer guidance to vendors and users of these technologies in terms of how they can be used to provide better and more inclusive experiences for applicants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although substantial research has been devoted to describing the challenges people with disabilities face in the workplace, much less attention has been focused on the processes that can bring about change. This article explores a proactive process, representative‐negotiated idiosyncratic work arrangements (i‐deals), that can create the conditions for long‐term employment for people with disabilities. Specifically, we explored the factors associated with the development and success of representative‐negotiated i‐deals for people with disabilities. Using focus groups and interviews with employers and job developers, we identified nine factors and two prevailing conditions that explain the contexts in which representative‐negotiated i‐deals will be successful. In doing so, we identified the negotiation stage during which these factors and prevailing conditions influence the i‐deals negotiation process. Representative‐negotiated i‐deals offer insights into how employees with disabilities can find more meaningful work. Together, these findings underscore how the representative i‐deals negotiation process is only viable if the facilitating factors are present and supported, while the absence of these factors can hinder and lead to failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The partnered research method, used routinely in other fields, offers great potential to improve the quality and practical use of applied psychology research. Partnered research integrates the perspectives of researchers, knowledge users, people who have lived experience with the attributes being studied, and other stakeholders in all elements of the research process, from the creation and generation of research questions to the methods used, the data analyzed, and the dissemination, application, and implementation of research results. We explain the concept of partnered research and provide a step‐by‐step roadmap for applied psychology scholars interested in conducting partnered research. In doing so, we also address common challenges with this method and provide advice on how to overcome them. We embed our description of the partnered research approach primarily in the context of research on disabilities and work but also offer examples drawn from other areas of applied psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors investigate the role of emotions in the job search and choice process of novice job seekers. Results of qualitative analyses of the first-person accounts of 41 job seekers indicate that participants whose recollections of their job search contained emotional language were more likely to display a haphazard job search strategy than those whose recollections did not. They were also more likely to engage in choice strategies that were not driven by concrete criteria. In comparison, participants whose recollections were not emotion-laden reported more criteria-driven choice strategies, and did not display the tendency to revise or lower their standards or to settle for a less desirable job than they had been seeking. Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of the role of emotions in job search and choice research as well as in terms of job search counseling for novice job seekers.

Claims of changes in the validity coefficients associated with general mental ability (GMA) tests due to the passage of time (i.e., temporal validity degradation) have been the focus of an on-going debate in applied psychology. To evaluate whether and, if so, under what conditions this degradation may occur, we integrate evidence from multiple sub-disciplines of psychology. The temporal stability of construct validity is considered in light of the evidence regarding the differential stability of g and the invariance of measurement properties of GMA tests over the adult life-span. The temporal stability of criterion-related validity is considered in light of evidence from long-term predictive validity studies in educational and occupational realms. The evidence gained from this broad-ranging review suggests that temporal degradation of the construct- and criterion-related validity of ability test scores may not be as ubiquitous as some have previously concluded. Rather, it appears that both construct and criterion-related validity coefficients are reasonably robust over time and that any apparent degradation of criterion-related validity coefficients has more to do with changes in the determinants of task performance and changes in the nature of the criterion domain rather temporal degradation per se (i.e., the age of the test scores). A key exception to the conclusion that temporal validity degradation is more myth than reality concerns decision validity. Although the evidence is sparse, it is likely that the utility of a given GMA test score for making diagnostic decisions about an individual deteriorates over time. Importantly, we also note several areas in need of additional and more rigorous research before strong conclusions can be supported.

The goal of this investigation was to understand the variety and relative importance of students' perceived sources of test anxiety. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to develop a framework of perceived sources of test anxiety. Students in the first sample provided personal descriptions of their perceived sources of test anxiety upon which the initial framework was developed. Factor analysis of responses to survey items by a second sample of students refined the initial framework. The final framework comprised three broad domains of perceptions of sources of test anxiety: students' perceptions of the test, their self-perceptions, and their perceptions of the test-taking situation. Each of these broad domains in turn subsumed a number of narrower categories of perceptions. Further analyses focused on the perceived and empirical relative importance of these perceived sources. Whereas students perceive test-related properties as most anxiety-inducing, self-perceptions appear to be more strongly empirically related to the level of test anxiety they experience. (Contains 5 tables.)

The purpose of our study was to further elucidate how employees should behave at work to increase their chances of being mentored by their immediate supervisor. To that end, we experimentally tested how three domains of employee performance [task performance (TP), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) targeting the supervisor, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB) targeting coworkers] affect supervisors' willingness to mentor. Each performance domain affected willingness to mentor. OCB had the weakest of the three main effects. Finally, the positive effect of TP was stronger when employees displayed less CWB. (Contains 2 figures and 2 tables.)

Although test anxiety is typically negatively related to performance on cognitive ability tests, little research has systematically investigated whether differences in test anxiety result in measurement bias on cognitive ability tests. The current paper uses a structural equation modeling technique to explicitly test for measurement bias due to test anxiety. In comparing two nested models, one hypothesizing measurement bias and one not, results show the model indicating no measurement bias to be statistically more acceptable. Consistent with the deficits model of test anxiety, results show that test anxiety is associated primarily with only the g-factor and has no significant influence on observed test scores. (Contains 2 figures and 4 tables.)

The relationship between intelligence and personality has been of scientific interest for over 100 years. However, most contemporary estimates of these relationships are limited because they do not separate the variance due to general and narrow cognitive abilities. This study demonstrates that this methodological oversight can distort estimates of intelligence-personality associations by masking true effects and falsely showing others. To test this proposition, we examine correlations between several personality and ability scales, and then repeat the analyses using latent modeling techniques where variance due to general intelligence (g) and narrow mental abilities is appropriately separated. Our results show that estimates of specific intelligence-personality associations based on observed test scores can be both erroneously inflated or deflated.

This paper investigates the differentiation of cognitive abilities as a function of neuroticism. Specifically, we examine Eysenck and White's [Eysenck, H. J., and White, P. O. (1964). Personality and the measurement of intelligence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 197-201.] hypothesis that cognitive abilities are less differentiated at high levels of neuroticism than they are at low levels of neuroticism. In spite of its potential importance, this hypothesis has only received limited research attention. Although a recent series of papers has found some initial support for the neuroticism-differentiation hypothesis, these studies have relied on correlational techniques. The current paper uses a more rigorous structural equation modeling technique to explicitly test for measurement invariance to determine whether the structure of cognitive abilities differs between high and low neuroticism levels, as measured by two self-report scales. Results from two datasets provide convincing evidence for complete measurement invariance across different levels of neuroticism, thus disconfirming the neuroticism-differentiation hypothesis.

We investigated the consequences of interview and social‐evaluative workplace anxiety on job performance, and whether these two anxieties share a common antecedent–fear of negative evaluation. Job applicants (n = 128) completed a survey following their interview and halfway through their work term; supervisory performance ratings were collected at the end of the work term. Fear of negative evaluation was positively correlated with both interview anxiety and social‐evaluative workplace anxiety. The correlation between interview anxiety and job performance was near zero, as was the correlation between social‐evaluative workplace anxiety and job performance; these relations were not moderated by the social‐evaluative nature of the job. This study suggests that anxious interviewees and employees perform as well as their less anxious counterparts, even in social‐evaluative jobs. Key points: Anxiety about employment interviews and anxiety in the workplace are common experiences for many people.Both types of anxiety are related to a trait called fear of negative evaluation.Although commonly experienced, neither interview anxiety nor workplace. anxiety are predictors of later job performance.Managers are encouraged not to overlook anxious interviewees during hiring or anxious employees during promotions because anxiety does not hinder job performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]