...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International journal of selection and assessment >Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods: A look at professionals in Mumbai, India
【24h】

Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods: A look at professionals in Mumbai, India

机译：人员选择方法的公平反应：印度孟买的专业人员

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This study expands upon Steiner and Gilliland's selection fairness research. Professionals (N = 114) from Mumbai, India rated 12 employee selection methods on favorability and provided the bases for those ratings. In line with previous research, interviews and resumes were rated most favorably, while graphology and honesty tests were rated least favorably. Perceived face validity, opportunity to perform, and widespread use of selection methods were highly correlated with favorability ratings, while interpersonal warmth, scientific evidence, and respectful of privacy exhibited weak correlations with favorability ratings. Work sample tests, which have previously been rated favorably, were rated unfavorably. Exploratory analysis showed that participants viewed assessment centers favorably and online information unfavorably. Outcome favorability was highly correlated with favorability ratings.
机译：这项研究是在Steiner和Gilliland的选择公平性研究的基础上展开的。来自印度孟买的专业人员（N = 114）对12种员工selection选方法进行了评价，并为这些评价提供了依据。与之前的研究一致，访谈和简历的评分最高，而笔迹学和诚实测试的评分最低。知觉的面部有效性，表演机会和选择方法的广泛使用与好感度高度相关，而人际交往的热情，科学证据和对隐私的尊重与好感度相关性较弱。以前曾被评为良好的工作样本测试被评为不利。探索性分析显示，参与者对评估中心的评价良好，而在线信息则不利。结果好感度与好感度等级高度相关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号