IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i01p167-174_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining Worker Underrepresentation in Selection Research: The Domain Matters

Author

Listed:
  • Huffcutt, Allen H.
  • Culbertson, Satoris S.

Abstract

We concur with Bergman and Jean (2016) that worker samples tend to be underrepresented in organizational research, which could have deleterious effects on the conclusions and practices derived from this research. However, we argue that the effects of underrepresentation could vary considerably by organizational domain (e.g., selection vs. leadership vs. satisfaction). Our focus with this commentary is to address its effects on organizational selection, particularly with employment interviews, including issues such as criterion-related validity, prevalence of student samples, and the four criteria outlined by the focal authors (overlooked phenomena, differences in construct meaning, worker status, and human capital patterns).

Suggested Citation

  • Huffcutt, Allen H. & Culbertson, Satoris S., 2016. "Examining Worker Underrepresentation in Selection Research: The Domain Matters," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 167-174, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:01:p:167-174_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942615001315/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:01:p:167-174_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.