Applicant Reactions as a Function of Test Length
Is There Reason to Fret Over Using Longer Tests?
Abstract
Abstract. This study investigated how the length of preemployment assessments affects applicant reactions to the testing process and organization. Using a between-subjects design, participants took one of four assessments (short personality, long personality, short cognitive, long cognitive) where they were incentivized to perform well, followed by a survey assessing perceptions of procedural justice, organizational attractiveness, and likelihood of accepting a job offer. Longer tests did not worsen applicant reactions for either personality or cognitive tests, and in fact individuals taking a longer cognitive assessment reported more favorable applicant reactions. Implications are discussed.
References
(2009). Test length and cognitive fatigue: An empirical examination of effects on performance and test-taker reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 163–181.
(2010). Applicant reactions in selection: Comprehensive meta-analysis into reaction generalization versus situational specificity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 291–304.
(1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory makes a comeback. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 303–311.
(2012). What we know about applicant reactions to selection: Research summary and best practices, (SIOP White Paper Series). Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/WhitePapers/White%20Paper%20Series%2020112012ApplicantReactions.pdf
(2001). Applicant reactions to selection: Development of the selection procedural justice scale (SPJS). Personnel Psychology, 54, 388–420.
(2010). The effect of job offer timing on offer acceptance, performance, and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 63, 223–241.
(2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
(1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 318–328.
(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
(1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210.
(1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694–734.
(2001).
Causes and consequences of applicant perceptions of unfairness . In R. CropanzanoEd., Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 175–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.(2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
(1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.
(2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639–683.
(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
(2010). Reasons for being selective when choosing personnel selection procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 17–27.
(2005). Examining the relationship between employer knowledge dimensions and organizational attractiveness: An application in a military context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 553–572.
(2012). Revisiting truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 109–117.
(1999). Pre-employment screening and applicants’ attitudes toward an employment opportunity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 700–712.
(1994). A field study of job applicants’ reactions to personality and cognitive ability testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 987–992.
(2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565–606.
(2006). So you didn’t get the job. now what do you think? Examining opportunity-to-perform fairness perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 59, 559–590.
(2011).
Applicant reactions to organizations and selection systems . In S. ZedeckEd., APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 379–397). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.(2002). Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1020–1031.
