A comparative study of practitioner perceptions of selection methods in the United Kingdom

In this study, 476 participants, divided into occupational psychology (OP)-, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)-, human resource management (HRM)-qualified, and layperson subgroups, provided their perceptions of the validity, fairness, and frequency of use of employee selection methods. Results of a mixed-effects analysis of covariance revealed that respondent qualification background predicted the degree to which participant validity perceptions were aligned with research-based estimates of validity, F [3, 29.39] = 20.06, p <.001, η2 =.67. Corrected pairwise comparisons suggested that perceptions of participants with CIPD and HRM backgrounds were not significantly more aligned with research estimates of validity than were the perceptions of laypeople. OP participant validity perceptions were significantly more aligned with research estimates than all other subgroups, (p <.03). Evidence was also found for some between-group consistency regarding frequency-of-use perceptions, but less between-group consistency was found vis-à-vis perceptions of fairness. Implications for decision-making in employee selection are discussed. Practitioner points: Knowledge about employee selection measures might not be effectively shared between those with CIPD- and HRM-related qualifications versus those with OP-related qualifications. Laypeople and respondents with CIPD- and HRM-related qualifications were found to deviate similarly from up-to-date research findings about the validity of selection measures. Respondents with OP-related qualifications were more closely aligned with up-to-date findings about the validity of selection measures than were other comparison groups.