Describe Different Ways Of Combining Candidates’ Scores

Describe different ways of combining candidates’ scores on different assessment methods to calculate an overall score

When employing multiple assessment methods in the hiring process, it is essential to combine candidates’ scores into an overall metric that allows for fair comparison and selection. Two primary approaches are typically used: the multiple hurdles approach and the compensatory approach. Each has its advantages and ideal application scenarios, depending on the importance of specific job requirements and organizational priorities.

Paper For Above instruction

The process of combining assessment scores is a critical aspect of staffing and selection, serving to ensure that the most suitable candidates are chosen for employment. The two predominant methods—multiple hurdles and compensatory approaches—offer different pathways to evaluate candidate suitability, catering to different organizational needs and job complexities.

Multiple Hurdles Approach

The multiple hurdles approach functions by establishing minimum passing scores—also known as cut scores—on various assessment procedures. Candidates must meet the predefined threshold on each assessment component to proceed in the selection process. For example, a manufacturing company may require a minimum score on a safety and machinery operation test before considering a candidate further. This method effectively filters out unsuitable candidates early, ensuring that only individuals meeting essential standards move forward.

One of the advantages of this method is its efficiency in reducing the pool to qualified applicants, especially when certain job characteristics are non-negotiable, such as safety or technical competence. However, it can be costly and time-consuming, as candidates are often required to revisit multiple assessment centers or tests. Moreover, the multiple hurdles approach is less flexible, as failing one assessment disqualifies a candidate entirely, which may not always be optimal, especially when some skills can compensate for others.

Compensatory Approach

The compensatory approach allows strong performance in one assessment area to offset weaker results in another. This method is suitable for roles where certain skills or attributes can compensate for deficiencies in others—an example being a sales position where excellent interpersonal skills can compensate for lower technical expertise. For instance, a candidate with high cognitive ability might mitigate a lower score in a personality assessment, leading to an overall higher combined score.

This approach facilitates a more holistic evaluation of candidates, recognizing complementary strengths. It involves assigning weights to different assessment components, calculating a composite score, and selecting candidates based on the highest overall scores. While flexible, this approach needs careful calibration of weights to prevent overemphasizing specific assessments and underestimating critical job requirements.

Application Scenario: A Data Entry Role

Consider a data entry position requiring a minimum typing speed with acceptable error rates. This essential skill could be screened using a hurdle test initially to eliminate candidates who do not meet the bare minimum. Subsequently, a combination of assessments—such as cognitive ability tests and personality evaluations—could be used in a compensatory manner. High scores in cognitive skills might boost a candidate’s overall score, especially when combined with favorable personality assessments, allowing less-than-strong typists with other strengths to be considered. This layered approach optimizes the selection process by ensuring essential skills are met while rewarding overall competence.

Summary and Implications

Both the multiple hurdles and compensatory methods offer valuable frameworks, with the choice largely depending on the job's nature and organizational priorities. For safety-critical roles, the hurdles method ensures minimum standards that mitigate risk. Conversely, the compensatory approach benefits roles requiring a broad spectrum of competencies, allowing more flexible candidate evaluation. Organizations should tailor their assessment integration strategies by considering job specifics, the validity of assessments, and fairness principles to ensure an equitable and effective selection process.

It is vital that the combined scores result in predictions that effectively correlate with on-the-job performance. Validating these methods through ongoing analysis helps refine cut scores and weighting schemes, enhancing their predictive power. Ultimately, the goal is to select candidates who are most likely to succeed and contribute positively to organizational performance.

References

• Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
• Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management. Pearson Education.
• Incoming, S., & Taylor, S. (2011). Combining Scores in Selection: Multiple Hurdles or Compensation? Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 538–550.
• Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96(1), 72–98.
• Arthur, W., Jr., Day, D. V., McNelly, T. L., & Edens, P. S. (2003). Predicting job performance: Validity generalization across information technology jobs. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 277–297.
• Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (2014). Employment Interviews in Organizations. In N. Schmitt & D. Chan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford University Press.
• Cortina, J. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising Voice and Bosses’ Responses to Incivility and Abuse. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 401–415.
• Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. (2001). Personnel selection. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16, 87–119.
• Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2000). Introduction to Personnel Selection. Academic Press.
• Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2012). The use of within-company and outside-company comparators for 360-degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 1077–1087.