Menu
Home
Log in / Register
 
Home arrow Psychology arrow The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention
Source

Validity of GMA for Predicting Non-Task Performance and Other Organizational Criteria

A number of recent studies, both primary and meta-analytic, consider the criterion domain to be more than overall and task performance. There is broad consensus that, in addition to task performance, job performance encompasses two additional dimensions: organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and counterproductive work behaviour (CWB).

Table 7.3 Average validity of general cognitive ability for predicting job performance

and training in Latin America, South Africa and South Pacific countries.

Country

K

N

P

90CV

Job Performance

Latin America

7

886

0.53

0.09

South Pacific countries

3

240

0.27

0.07

South Africa

9

841

0.66

0.66

Training

Latin America

2

1,314

0.36

0.36

South Africa

3

273

0.81

0.76

K=number of studies; N=sample size; p = operational validity; 90CV = 90% credibility.

These two broad dimensions can be clearly distinguished from task performance, and are increasingly exerting an important influence on the outcomes of the organizations. For this last reason, meta-analytic studies have recently turned to obtaining estimates of the relationship of GMA with OCB and CWB.

Gonzalez-Mule, Mount and Oh (2014) examined the validity of GMA for predicting CWB and OCB. They found that the validity of GMA for predicting overall counterproductive behaviours at work was essentially 0 (K= 35, N = 12,074). However, GMA showed a small, though not generalizable, validity size (p = -0.20, K= 7, N = 1,854) for predicting organizational CWB, one of the sub-dimensions of CBW.

Postlethwaite (2011) examined the validity of general cognitive ability (GCA), as measured by a compound of Gf and Gc for predicting OCB, and found an operational validity of 0.18 (K = 7, N = 871). For their part, Gonzalez-Mule Mount and Oh (2014) examined the validity of GMA for predicting supervisory ratings of OCB and found an operational validity of 0.24 (K= 36, N = 10,404). Consequently, the two estimates of GMA were predictors of OCB, though the validity size was remarkably smaller than the validity for predicting overall job performance and task performance.

An important conclusion in Gonzalez-Mule Mount and Oh’s (2014) and Postle- thwaite’s (2011) meta-analyses is that GMA seems to be only moderately useful for predicting OCB and CWB-O, it has very small practical utility for predicting CWB-I and it has practically 0 validity for predicting overall CWB. Nevertheless, further research is required given that the predictive validity for these criteria has been shown to be culturally determined (Nimura, Ishashiro & Naito, 2000; Al-Ali, Gamer & Magadley, 2009). A summary of these meta-analytic results is given in Tables 7.4 and 7.5.

Earlier meta-analytic efforts examined the validity of cognitive ability for predicting other non-performance criteria, such as turnover, achievement/grades, status change and work sample. Schmitt, Gooding, Noe and Kirsch (1984) performed the first meta-analysis of the relationship between cognitive ability and these criteria and found that GMA predicted turnover (r = 0.14; N = 12,449), achievement/grades (r =0 .44, N=888), status change (r = 0.28, N=21,190) and work samples (r = 0.43, N=1,793). It should borne in mind that these validity estimates were not corrected for criterion unreliability and range restriction. When these corrections are done the figures are much higher. Table 7.6 reports a summary of these findings.

In brief, meta-analyses have shown that GMA predicted one of the dimensions of job performance, OCB, but not the other, CWB. Moreover, GMA appears to be a predictor of objective organizational criteria such as turnover, achievement, status change and work samples.

Table 7.4 Validity of GMA for predicting counterproductive work behaviour.

Ability

K

N

P

90CV

Overall CWB

35

12,074

-0.02

0.04

CWB - Organizational

7

1,854

-0.20

0.01

CWB - Interpersonal

4

1,462

-0.09

0.10

CWB = counterproductive work behaviour; K = number of studies; N=sample size; p = operational validity; 90CV = 90% credibility.

Source: Gonzalez-Mule et al. (2014, Table 1, p. 1228).

Table 7.5 Validity of GMA and GCA for predicting supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behaviours.

Relation

K

N

P

90CV

GMA-overall OCBa

36

10,404

0.24

0.03

GCA-overall OCBb

7

871

0.18

0.03

OCB = organizational citizenship behaviours; K=number of studies; N=sample size; p = operational validity; 90CV = 90% credibility

Source: a = Adapted from Gonzalez-Mule et al. (2014, Table 2, p.1229); b = Adapted from Postlethwaite (2011).

Table 7.6 Validity of GMA for predicting less common organizational criteria.

Criteria

K

N

P

Turnover

8

12,449

0.14

Achievement/grades

5

888

0.44

Status change

9

21,190

0.28

Work sample

4

1,793

0.43

K = number of studies; N=sample size; p = operational validity; 90CV = 90% credibility. Source: Schmitt et al. (1984).

 
Source
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >
 
Subjects
Accounting
Business & Finance
Communication
Computer Science
Economics
Education
Engineering
Environment
Geography
Health
History
Language & Literature
Law
Management
Marketing
Mathematics
Political science
Philosophy
Psychology
Religion
Sociology
Travel