Talk:Personnel selection

message: I have begun preliminary revisions on the personnel selection article as a part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative for a course in industrial and organizational psychology. Actual edits to the page have not yet been performed. I have thus far done as follows:
* Further familiarize myself regarding Wikipedia-appropriate editing and authoring practices, using Help:Editing and other resources
* Read and take notes on the I/O psychology article, particularly regarding information specific to personnel selection and related areas
* Read and take notes on the personnel selection article itself, noting immediate strengths, weaknesses, organization, and sources cited relative to similar good articles
* Look into issues addressed on this talk page
* Use notes to guide a literature review, beginning with the original citations, my course textbook, library sources, and searches of relevant databases
My next steps are as follows:
* Create an outline for proposed edits and additions to the article, taking advantage of the sandbox in the process to practice editing techniques
* Seek peer and/or instructor feedback before moving forward
Preliminary References:
* Arthur, W. R., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 435-442.
* Campion, M. A., Outtz, J. L., Zedeck, S., Schmidt, F. L., Kehoe, J. F., Murphy, K. R., & Guion, R. M. (2001). The controversy over score banding in personnel selection: Answers to 10 key questions. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 149–185.
* Cascio, W. F., Outtz, J., Zedeck, S., & Goldstein, I. L. (1991). Statistical implications of six methods of test score use in personnel selection. Human Performance, 4, 233–264.
* Goffin, R. D., & Boyd, A. C. (2009). Faking and personality assessment in personnel selection: Advancing models of faking. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 151-160.
* Hausdorf, P. (2011). Review of "The psychology of personnel selection". Canadian Psychology, 52(1), 64-66.
* Muchinsky, P. M. (2012) Psychology Applied to Work (10th ed.). Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press.
* Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mishra, P. (2011). Effects of organizational citizenship behaviors on selection decisions in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 310-326.
* Roulin, N., Bangerter, A., & Yerly, E. (2011). The uniqueness effect in selection interviews. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(1), 43-47.
* Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162-173.
* Van Iddekinge, C. H., Putka, D. J., & Campbell, J. P. (2011). Reconsidering vocational interests for personnel selection: The validity of an interest-based selection test in relation to job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 13-33.
Please leave me comments with your signature, Thank you Yoyobyebye44 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans for updates 

message: Hi,
*I think you definitely started off in the right direction; choosing solid sources like Muchinsky and writing some thoughtful text based on that. Unfortunately, it's not just about quality - we want quantity too, and there hasn't been much of that.
*Presentation is OK; the text is readable enough and free from obvious flaws. 
*I have no qualms about neutrality or original research or copyright violation; all seems fine on that front.
*Alas, there's just not much for me to comment on! There's a lot more which could be said about personnel selection.
bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review etc. 

message: I see this article is being used as part of come course work on an Organisational Psychology Course. All well and good and I believe strongly it potentially provides an excellent win - win, both for Wikipedia and the student. However, in the last day or so there seems to have been large quantities of material added which is related to the methods of statistical academic analysis of selection processes based almost entirely on Organisational and Industrial Psychology research and review. Furthermore the focus of the article has moved from a broadly neutral worldview of the subject to one which is based on US legal requirements and I/O (Industrial Psychology) practice. I have concerns about this and would normally just revert and suggest the editor come here. However, sensitive to the cicumstances I did not wish to go down that route.
 
I had already reverted a recent edit because a significant quanitiy of material had been almost 100% lifted from other WP articles relating to job Performance and Industrial Psychology. Now more material along the lines already described above has been added 'en bloc'. As it has been crafted in the style of an essay piece and then just posted into the article it looks out of kilter with the normal style adopted in Wikipedia articles - i.e. based on the needs of the typical user. Now having come to the Talk Page to start a discussion on this I see from the previous Peer Review section there are comments relating to the articles revision by the peer reviewer to the student which includes statements to the effect that the ‘quality is good’ but the ‘quantity needs working on’. Thus the arrival, all of the sudden, of large quantities of at least partially off-topic text makes sense.  The last thing I want to do is to cause grief for anyone on a study course but I also presume part of the idea behind using Wikipedia as an area for experimentation is to work within the policies that the Wikipedia project has established for all editors.
It would be helpful if those involved in this current study exercise could come here and discuss what the focus of the article revision is aimed at and therefore allow for consensus to be arrived at, and at a pace we can cope with, as is the Wikipedia way. I for one am not a psychology expert so although I have read much and studied it so I can grasp what it all means on the O&IP, I could not contribute on the technicalities of this - there will be others who can - but like many others who dive in and out of these types or articles I am an HR practitioner and we could all therefore be of some value in participating in changes to the article. Tmol42 (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisational Psychology focus 

message: Please correct/clarify this apparent contradiction: 
"This value will range between 0 and 1, reflecting the selectivity of the organization's hiring practices. When the SR is equal to 1 or greater, the use of any selection device has little meaning, but this is not often the case as there are usually more applicants than job openings.  
Mjtagler (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  please clarify the following: 

message: This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course.  As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.
If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article.  Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work.  If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further.  If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.
Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
* 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
* 1 - A few minutes of work needed
* 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
* 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
* 4 - More than an hour of work needed
Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact of recent student edits