Development of an applicant reaction questionnaire for the Belgian military

There is a growing awareness that staffing systems of organizations can be evaluated and improved by taking applicant reactions into consideration (Anderson, 2004). Recently, the Belgian Defense launched a project to investigate treatment of applicants during early hiring. This study reports on the development of an applicant reaction questionnaire tailored to fit this specific setting. Two hundred and twenty one items were pulled from existing applicant reaction models, questionnaires and interviews held with 250 applicants. They related to three procedural hurdles, namely the career office consultation, the initial intelligence screening, and the extended psychological screening. Fifty-three selection officers (Subject Matter Experts, SMEs) sorted and labeled all items. Classical multidimensional scaling revealed two-dimensional configurations (first two hurdles) and a three-dimensional solution (third hurdle), comprising specific regions for each of them. Corroborative evidence for the regional structure of the items was found on the basis of additive tree modeling. Although SMEs were not informed about the research goal, both the graphic solution and labeling task came close to theoretical categories of existing applicant reaction models. Very specific regions were also revealed that are relevant for the particular military hiring context. INTRODUCTION In recent years, shortages in labor markets became apparent across the States and Europe. The Belgian military, as well as other nations’ armed forces envisages increasing difficulties in attracting and enlisting new recruits (Bachman, Segal, Freedman-Doan, & O'Malley, 2000). Until now, research on military propensity and enlistment mainly focused on demographic, educational, and family background factors, as well as on attitudes about military service (Bachman et al., 2000; Martin, 1995). Yet, specific factors determining applicants’ attraction to the military in early selection stages have not been investigated extensively (Schreurs, Derous, E., De Witte, K., Proost, K., Andriessen, M., & Glabeke, K., in press). Among these factors are applicants` reactions towards procedural characteristics of the selection encounter. DIMENSIONS OF APPLICANT REACTIONS Interests in applicants` reactions has grown substantially since the 1990s. Attention is paid to a construct-driven approach, relating applicant reactions to antecedents and consequences (Truxillo, Steiner & Gilliland, 2004). Iles and Robertson (1989), for example, introduced the concept ‘impact validity’. They were one of the first presenting an entire model on the impact of selection practices on applicants’ cognitions and attitudes towards themselves, the selection and the organization. Schuler (1993) formulated a model on the ‘social validity’ of selection, affecting the perceived acceptability of selection procedures. Four dimensions were formulated, namely: (1) job/organization information, (2) applicants` participation, (3) procedural transparency, and (4) performance feedback (form/content). Gilliland (1993; 1995) suggested 10 procedural justice rules, related to formal characteristics (e.g., job relatedness), information offered during selection (e.g., feedback), and interpersonal treatment (e.g., propriety of questions). Only recently, scholars began developing specific applicant reaction measures. Bauer et al. (2001) presented the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS). Fallon, Gilliland, Groth, and Ferreter (2002) developed the Applicant Reaction Scale (ARS). Derous, Born, and De Witte (2004) developed the Social Process Questionnaire on Selection (SPQS). All of them were developed on the basis of Gilliland`s procedural justice model. However, the SPQS differs from the ARS and the SPJS in that it measures applicants’ pre-process expectations and values of the selection procedure instead of post-process justice perceptions. Comparisons of applicant reaction dimensions across models and questionnaires can be requested from the authors or can be found in Derous and De Witte (2001). FROM GENERIC TO DOMAIN-SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS Existing models/questionnaires like the SPJS address overall, global applicant reactions. Because the Belgian military has its own, specific way of hiring applicants, it was requested to develop a questionnaire that addresses both generic as well as domain-specific reactions. More specifically, the choice of dimensions had to be tailored to the first hurdles of the hiring process. These hurdles are identical for all applicants and consists of the career office consultation (Hurdle 1), the initial intelligence screening (Hurdle 2), and the expanded psychological screening (Hurdle 3). The career office consultation takes place at one of the career offices (CO, cf. Hurdle 1), spread all over the country. Career counselors provide visitors with realistic information (on vacancies, working conditions, career possibilities and other organizational characteristics) on which the prospect can decide whether or not to apply. Upon their final decision to apply, applicants are screened through a computerized cognitive ability test, measuring memory, spatial, numeric and logical reasoning (PInP, cf. Hurdle 2). After passing the test, an appointment is made for the expanded psychological screening at the Center for Recruitment and Selection (CRS, cf. Hurdle 3). Expanded psychological screening takes one day, and comprises a physical ability test, medical examination, and personality screening. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The current project attempts to adapt dimensions of existing applicant reactions models/questionnaires to hiring practices within a specific military context. The first phase of the study involves the generation of applicant reaction items, which fit the hiring procedures of the Belgian military. In a second phase, items are presented to 53 subject matter experts in military recruitment and selection (SMEs). The present paper addresses the second phase. Two research questions are considered. First, how will SMEs categorize all items? Second, how will SMEs interpret groups of applicant reaction items?