INTRODUCTION:

In today’s world, work organizations require the right caliber of employees (workforce) in order to match or be ahead of competitors. Business organizations struggle tenaciously in battle for competence. Many firms invest huge sum of capital, time and some other wealth into publicity and into hiring policies to bring-in and sustain finest applicants. It is so since managers in our recent day have realized it that, the most imperative resource in corporate industries is ‘human resources’ (Pulakos, 2005). According to Luszez and Kleiner (2001), “A highly successful organization is built on the strength of exceptional people. No matter how much technology and mechanization is developed, no organization could survive and prosper without them”. Kehoe (2002) also found that a high productivity growth rate (increase in output) is mainly directly driven by skills and knowledge growth of employees.

This has become a key priority for management of every organization (Companies) to be able to select the right type of people (work force) for its operational activities and also to take the necessary strain. Moreover, placing the right personnel (employee) in the right position (job) have also, always become a major issue for management in work organizations. The selection of the personals (employees) for work organizations can affect its performance in diverse ways (Kehoe, 2002). If selection is not done properly, personals can be misplaced and this could have major cost implications on the organization (Muller and Schepers, 2003).

Bullard (2001), also states that replacing personnel in work organization is one of the most difficult and expensive business activities. In order to reduce cost and simplify the process of selection of talented and skilled personals, the management of every organization must adopt (employ) selection tools (methods) that are “valid” and “reliable” for this process.

The prime aim of measuring human attributes in the workplace is to diagnose the potentials of individuals and fit them to the right job or task (Muller and Schepers, 2003). Gatewood and Field (1990) define selection as a process of gathering and evaluating information about individual applicants in order to extend offers of employment to them. Selection aims at contributing towards organizational goals and reducing labor cost, through the acquisition of competent and motivated workforce (Muller and Schepers, 2003).

The selection process varies from organization to organization, job to job, and country to country. Some of the processes include screening applications and resumes, testing and reviewing work samples, interviewing, checking references, applicants’ background and so forth. Organizations use these processes to increase the probability of hiring individuals who possess the precise skills and abilities to be successful at their jobs (Walker, 2009).

When it actually gets to reviewing job which applicants are more likely to accomplish most successfully and make the most considerable contributions, most organizations use undeveloped and messy techniques to select their workers (Pulakos, 2005). Pulakos further explains that this depicts a solemn detach for companies claiming to have a tactical hub on mounting their key competencies through a resourceful supervision. This disconnection comes as a result that many organizations refuse to engage in systematically proven assessment tools (i.e. selection tools that are ‘valid’ and ‘reliable’) to make decisions on selection, although such assessment methods are accepted to produce a substantial output increases, are cost-effective, and other crucial organizational outputs that transform into factually millions of dollars.

Consequently, there is a genuine and a very considerable upshot of finance that is associated with using effective selection tools to direct selection verdicts (Pulakos, 2005).

Pulakos (2005) still explains further that, there are various types of formal selection (assessment) tools that organizations can utilize to decide on (hire) employees, this may include the following; cognitive ability tests, job knowledge tests, personality rests, biographical data, integrity tests, structured interviews, physical fitness tests, situation judgment test, work sample tests, assessment centers, physical ability tests and others. In developing or choosing a selection tool for a specified condition, the first step is to comprehend the job expectations of employees and, in line, the knowledge, skills and abilities that employees must have before they can execute the work in effect. It is usually achieved by executing ‘job analyses’ on that particular job in the organization. However, properly identifying and implementing formal selection tools (assessment methods) to select prospective employees is one of the more complex areas for Human Resource Practitioners to learn about and understand. This is because understanding selection tests requires knowledge of statistics, measurement and legal issues relevant to testing.

Human Resource Practitioners must also ensure certain criteria for choosing and evaluating selection tools (assessment methods) to help them make informed decisions in their organizations. These criteria are the ‘Validity’ and ‘Reliability’ of the selection tool they employ. Validity refers to the extent to which the selection tool/method is useful for predicting subsequent job performance. That is, whether the selection tool presents positive information about how successfully a worker would really achieve once he/she is offered a job or not. Reliability on the other hand refers to the evenness or exactness by which a selection tool assesses what it intends to assess (Pulakos, 2005).

Selection process is vital to any business organization since it is keen to assess and choose well competent workforce. Acquiring the right employees into the right positions at the right moment doing the right work is an important component of the selection procedure in business organizations Tertiary education in Ghana has notably been growing during the last twenty years, both in terms of enrollment and infrastructures. A substantial part of this development comes from the private sector. By the year 1979, Ghana had only three (3) public universities with a few number of research institutions and professional associations. These universities were University of Ghana, Legon-Accra which is the premier university established in 1948, University of Science and Technology (UST) which is now Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi established in 1952 and University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast which was also established in 1961 (MoE, 2013 in Atuahene, 2013).

Now Ghana has nine (9) public universities including University of Education, Winneba, University of Development Studies, Tamale, University of Professional Studies, Accra, University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, University of Health and Allied Sciences, Ho and University of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani. In addition to the nine public universities mentioned above, there are about forty-nine (49) private universities also which equally provide academic instructions to students, ranging from the diplomate level to the PhD level of education in Ghana.

With the increase in enrollment in high school education, the struggle for access to tertiary institutions is globally on the rise in the last decade in all the tertiary institutions in Ghana. This has also resulted in a large increase in the employment of university officials such as Lecturers, administrators, security officers, among others. In 2001, the University of Ghana and likewise all the other existing universities admitted almost 96% of their prospective student applications it received. However, in 2011, this approval rate dropped to 52% (MoE, 2013 in Atuahene, 2013).

Basic Concepts of Selection and Selection Tools (Methods):

Successful companies are those that are competent to attract, select and keep the best labor force on the market. When an organization possesses highly qualified staff, it results into an increase in productivity. However, to discover and hire those skillful workforces is not an easy task. Human Resource Management Practitioners need to perform various activities in order to find and select a person with the right skills, abilities, experience and knowledge to fill a position (Bigazi, 2011).

Selection of workers is carried-out by management of an organization not just to replace existing employees or just a mere adding-up to an already existing workforce but rather aims to put in place workers who can perform at a higher level and also demonstrate commitment (Ballantyne, 2009 cited by Rees & French, 2010).

Bratton and Gold (2003) defined selection as “the process by which managers and others use specific instruments to choose from a pool of applicants, a person or persons most likely to succeed in the job(s), given management goals and legal requirements”. Also, according to Ashby, Franklin and Pell (2001) employee selection can be defined as the process of choosing from a group of candidates, the individual or individuals who are well qualified and will be offered a position in an organization. Similarly, Edenborough (1999) refers to Selection as the combination of processes that lead to the choice of one or more candidates over others for one or more jobs or roles by the management of an organization.

From the above definitions given by the various authorities, one may define selection as a way of differentiating between two or more candidates in order to make out and hire those who are well qualified and possess the right skills, knowledge, experience and abilities needed to perform a particular job when offered employment. Selection tools (assessment methods) on the other hand are defined by Schmidt and Hunter (1998) as “any test or procedure administered to individuals to evaluate their job-related competencies, interests, or fitness for employment”. They advanced their explanations that, it is not every selection tool that is suitable for all jobs and also best-fits every organizational setting.

Therefore, management should take into consideration some amount of factors to determine the most suitable selection approach for a challenging condition. They further went ahead to state that, the considerations may include timetables for filling positions, available staff and financial resources, number of positions to be filled, and the nature and complexity of the work performed in the positions to be filled. Schmidt and Hunter hence concluded by stating, the accuracy with which an applicant’s assessment scores can be used to forecast performance on the job is the tool’s most important characteristic, referred to as “predictive validity”.

As stated earlier by Pulakos (2005) construed that, numerous different types of selection tools are available for organizations to be used to select their prospective employees. But before choosing any selection or assessment method for a given situation (job), management must first spell-out in details of what the job demands workers to accomplish and likewise the skills, intelligence, experience and capabilities applicants must have to carry out the job successfully.

Pulakos further went on to categorize selection tools (assessment methods) into two main criteria namely; the Knowledge, Skills and Abilities-Based Assessment Methods: examples of this type are; Cognitive ability tests, Job knowledge tests, Personality tests, Biographical data, Integrity tests, Structured interviews, Physical fitness tests, and among others. Then also she gave, the Task-Based Assessment Methods: examples are; Situation judgment test, Work sample tests, Assessment centers, Physical ability tests.

Cognitive Ability Tests:

These selection tools assess a range of psychological aptitudes, such as oral ability, arithmetical ability, reasoning ability and reading comprehension (Hunter, 1986). Ree, Earles and Teachout (1994), also assert that mental ability tests have been proven to be enormously constructive forecasters of job performance and are employed more often to make hiring decisions for several diverse jobs. Cognitive ability tests in general comprise of multiple-choice items that are administered by means of a pencil-and-paper mechanism or using computer (Gottredson, 1982).

Job Knowledge Tests:

These selection tools also assess vital knowledge activities that are desirable to execute a job successfully. Normally, the knowledge behaviors evaluated stand for technical knowledge. Job knowledge tests are applied to situations where candidates must attain a body of knowledge preceding to job entry and not suitable to be applied in circumstances where applicants will be taught/educated to be developed after hiring on the skill areas they have to possess. Job knowledge tests also compose of multiple-choice items managed through a pencil-and-paper mechanism or a computer (Hunter, 1986).

Personality Tests:

Raymark, Schmidt and Guion (1997), explained that, personality tests assess traits relevant to job performance. The personality factors that are assessed most frequently in work situations include conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience and emotional stability (Tett, Jackson and Rothstein, 1991). Personality tests consist of several multiple-choice or true/false items. Their implementation is also through a pencil-and-paper or a computer format (Hough, 1992).

Biographical Data (biodata):

These tests solicit job applicants’ questions concerning their background, personal characteristics or interests. The idea is that the best predictor of future performance is past performance (Stokes, Mumford and Owens, 1994). Thus, biodata test-items typically hub itself on evaluating how effectively and efficiently job applicants performed in their previous works, more especially in some aspects that are comparable and highly correlated to what they would be mandated to do on the job when they are chosen. Shoenfeldt (1999) also added that biographical data tests normally compose of multiple-choice test-items that are also managed by means of a paper-and-pencil or computer formats.

A similar form of a biodata catalog is the “accomplishment record”. Here, job applicants are allowed to provide a detailed documented report of their most creditable and commendable achievements in core skills and abilities they possess for the job (Hough, 1984).

Integrity Tests:

Ones et al (1993) explained integrity tests as a form of assessment tests that evaluate mind-sets and experiences connected to an individual’s or a job applicant’s sincerity, dependability and loyalty.

Likewise other tests previously discussed, these tests are naturally multiple-choice in format and are managed by the use of paper-and-pencil mechanism or a computer (Sackett and Wanek, 1996).

Structured Interviews:

Interviews are the most widespread selection device being used by organizations today. However, majority of them are unstructured (Eder and Ferris, 1989). That is to say, the test-items involved in them (questions to be asked) rest in the hands of the assessment officer to decide on, and there exist no laid-down principles for measuring an applicant’s achievements throughout the discussion (Eder and Ferris, 1989). While structured interviews on the other side are composed of a specific set of questions that are deliberately designed to assess critical knowledge, skills and abilities required for a job. It provides consistent and uniform marks to assist interviewers to pass judgments on the excellence and value of the responses provided by the interviewee (Campion et al, 1988).

Physical Fitness Tests:

Here, assessment tests allow candidates (job applicants) to complete series of physical activities in general to determine one’s overall health, potency, stamina and other physical capabilities required to effectively execute the job (Judge, Higgins and Cable, 2000). These types of tests are not frequently employed except in some cases where a particular job requires manual strength to be performed.

Work Sample Tests:

Work sample tests comprise series of tasks or work activities that reflect the tasks that employees are obliged to complete on the job. These tests can be structured to measure any job task but are usually designed to measure technically and practically oriented tasks, such as manufacturing equipments, repairing and troubleshooting equipments, planning and organizing work, et cetera (Asher and Sciarrino, 1974). Hunter and Hunter (1984) added that, likewise job knowledge tests, work sample tests are applied in circumstances where job candidates are anticipated to have a working experience on how to carry out the assessed job tasks prior to job entry. Work sample assessments would not be vital to utilize, when training on how to execute the work will be held for persons after hiring them (Howard, 1983).

Assessment Centers:

Gaugler et al (1987) explained an assessment center as, a type of selection tool that focuses on measuring top executive and administrative position competencies. With this type of assessment, job applicants are given a succession of comprehensive tasks that suggest real situations to complete. Besides they are also required to handle any problem that they are likely to come across on the task being measured as in the real life situations (Thornton and Byham, 1982). Thornton (1992) highlighted that, assessment centers are in some way comparable to work sample tests described previously. They typically include role-play exercises, in-basket exercises, analytical exercises and group discussion exercises. Some assessment centers may also include other types of assessment methods, such as cognitive ability tests, job knowledge tests and personality tests.

Physical Ability Tests:

Hogan (1991) brought to the fore that, physical ability tests are used regularly to select workers for physically demanding jobs, such as police officers and fire-fighters. Campion (1983) also advanced that, physical ability tests are not dissimilar to work sample tests in the sense that both call for applicants to carry out a sequence of definite tasks to verify if they can achieve the physical capabilities of the said job or not.

These tests are commonly rated on either ‘passed’ or ‘failed’ basis. Physical ability tests require applicants to complete a range of general physical activities (e.g., running, lifting, pushing and pulling) to estimate their overall physical fitness for the job, but do not necessarily duplicate job tasks (Blakley et al, 1994).

The Selection Process:

Selection procedures vary from organization to organization depending on the human resource selection policy, available resources, company size, the type of industry, geographic location, the state of the labor market, the type and level of the position all have impact on the type, order and number of steps and tools an organization uses in its selection process (Stone, 1998). Stone further expatiated that, in order for an organization to achieve its human resource policy objectives, selection decisions must conform to corporate policy.

The decision to select the true person(s) to fill vacant positions is one of the key functions of managers. Peter Druker (1964), an American management guru, highlighted that senior (top) managers in every organization have two main important functions to play in the organization. These functions are; to set the strategic course for the organization (planning and making strategic decisions), and also, to put the right people in place to make certain that the course will be followed (planning and hiring the right workforce). Guion and Gibson (1988) brought to the fore that selection process can be seen as culminating in a decision to hire one or more applicant(s) for employment and not to hire others, and that the process of selection can be more complicated if not carefully planned and well-structured.

Choosing a type of selection tool mostly depends on the type of skills and competencies need for a job, and also the financial state of the organization. Other vital questions such as; in what array should they bring to use, when using several selection tools? Is it necessary to employ well trained raters, and if so, the number of raters to consider (for example, in conducting interviews as ‘panelists’)? How many applications are expected (that is, the number of desirable labor force)? And then last but not the least, what is the timeframe for filling vacancies? These questions will aid management to rule-out some more expensive selection methods such as assessment centers, work simulation tests, and the rest if budget is tight. Mathis and Jackson (2004) also reviewed the selection process by representing the various selection stages a candidate may pass through with the chart below in their order of occurrence from top to down.

Figure 2.1: Selection Process Flowchart.

Source: Mathis and Jackson (2004), Page 195.:

The validity and reliability of selection tools:

Selection tools are available to organizations in various forms. They emerge from the traditional selection methods such as application forms, references, and interviews through to the more complicated selection techniques which include biographical data, aptitude tests, assessment centers, work samples tests, psychological tests, graphology, cognitive ability tests, personality tests, integrity tests, physical fitness tests, situational judgment tests, job knowledge tests, and among others. Each of these selection tools stated above has its own merits and demerits. The extent to which a selection tool (assessment method) is perceived to be effective and conceivably accurate is determined by its ‘validity’ and ‘reliability’ (Miyake, 2002).

Validity of selection tools:

Saunders and Thornhill (2009) defined validity as “the degree of accuracy to which data collection method measures what it intended to measure or the extent to which research findings are about what they claim to be about”. Similarly, Stone (1998) also defined validity as “the extent to which a predictor (such as level of education and scores on an aptitude test) correlates with criteria identified as measuring job performance (such as measures of productivity for example sales, absenteeism and performance ratings)”. In simply put, Stone defined validity as the ability of a predictor to measure what it is supposed to measure. Biddle (2005) also expatiated that validity is the gap between an applicant’s score on an evaluation exercise and his/her actual productivity measure on the job. Biddle added that, validity is the main imperative subject to be regarded when considering the choice of selection (assessment) tools to be used. This is of the fact that an assessment method which does not present any meaningful information concerning how a person will achieve on a job is of no use to the organization (Biddle, 2005).

Concurrent validity:

Healy and Associates (2000) further defined concurrent validity also as, the correlation between assessment outcomes and some standard measure of job outcome or training results at the same time. Here, the assessment grades/marks and the job aspects are calculated and gathered at the same time. Concurrent validity is generally utilized on existing employees and can be helpful to appraise skills and performance status and also for future training requirements.

Predictive validity:

This is the level at which an assessment or a questionnaire is able to forecast the future positive result on job performance. For instance, work attitudes on job performance. The table below summarizes the ‘predictive validity’ research findings of some different selection methods available:

Table 2.1 The predictive validity findings of various selection tools

Selection Tools	Predictive Validity
Assessment Centers	0.65
Structured Interviews	0.40 – 0.60
Work Sample Tests	0.54
Cognitive Ability Tests	0.53
Personality Tests	0.39
Biographical data (biodata)	0.38
Reference Checks	0.23
Unstructured Interviews	0.05 – 0.19

Source: The British Psychological Society/Accord Group in Niche Consulting Ltd (2005).

Face validity:

This validity evidence is about the ‘look’ and ‘feel’ of a test-item and if or not a candidate can see the significance and fairness of the test or measurement tool to the related work or task. A very high face validity test may perhaps build the candidate perceiving the test to feel more contented and relaxed with the test as it seems associated to the work or task. This in any way does not cause the test to be a first-class or a high-quality test. For the fact that a test is of a very high face validity in any way does not conclude that such test is really extrapolative of something constructive, on the job outcome

The effectiveness and importance of selection tools:

The aim of employee selection to every organization is to guarantee a sufficient income on venture. With the issue of employees’ selection, it involves the certainty that the outputs of the newly-hired employees are expensive than that of the costs involved in inviting, choosing, and training (developing) them. The use of selection tools that have been proven ‘scientifically valid’ are said to show significant increment in output level, create cost-savings and reduce attrition (Morgan, 2007). There are numbers of essential features that makes a test worth using it. First, it must be ‘valid’. This means, it must measure the characteristics which it was intended to measure. Secondly, it must also be ‘reliable’ in that the results must be the same if the tests are given under identical conditions. Thirdly, there must be ‘norms’ available which have arisen from standardized interpretation. Fourthly, the test(s) must be free of ‘discrimination’. Finally, selection tests should be ‘adaptable’ for disabled candidate(s) (Stredwick, 2000).

Gilliland and Cherry (2000) also reviewed that to ensure an effective use of selection tools in selection processes certain principles must be adhered to by agencies in the selection of employees. These agencies (HR Personnel) are supposed to regulate and record the evaluation process through the following steps. The agencies must care for all job applicants time after time by employing a uniform measurement and administrative process. Also, they must make sure that the selection tools are based on an updated job analysis and is assisted by strong validity evidence. Again, they must ensure that job applicants perceive the process as fair.

Hence, human resource managers are advised to present to job applicants a prudent job preview prior to the evaluation process, and also must discuss with job applicants the underlying principle for choosing the selection tool, as well as what it intends to assess and why those competencies are vital for the job. Managers should offer job applicants the chance to raise questions about the job and its selection procedure, and give equal treatment to all candidates with esteem, compassion, and objectivity during the selection process. Human resource managers once more, should offer response about all decisions involve in hiring personnel in an appropriate and considerate manner to job applicants, and bring-out responses from candidates, including those chosen and those not chosen during the selection process. Last but not the least, managers must ensure that all persons involved in the selection process (for example; administrators, interviewers, assessors) understand their roles and responsibilities.

Table 2.4 Some selection tools recently being used by some organizations

	Use	Use	Do
	Extensively	Sometimes	Not Use
	%	%	%
SELECTION TOOLS/PRACTICES
GENERAL
Applications – forms	89	8	3
Resume screening – manual	80	16	4
Reference checks	75	24	1
Drug tests	56	9	35
Biographical data	18	15	67
Training and experience evaluations	15	42	43
Resume screening	9	14	76
TESTING AND ASSESSMENT
Ability tests	17	63	20
Knowledge tests	8	61	30
Personality inventories	7	28	65
Performance/Work sample tests	6	60	34
Assessments	4	45	51
Integrity tests	1	7	92
INTERVIEWS
Behavior-based interviews	59	38	3
Situational interviews	28	55	17
Computer-assisted interviews	1	10	89

Note: Due to rounding, not all percentages total 100 percent.

Source: Rioux and Bernthal (1999), Recruitment and Selection Practices. Vol. 2.

Table 2.5 The effectiveness of some selection methods

In a survey of 201 HR executives, participants were asked which selection methods (tools) produce the best employees. The mean rating for nine methods on a 5-point scale (1 = not good, 3 = average, 5 = extremely good):

Work samples 3.68

References/recommendations 3.49

Unstructured interviews 3.49

Structured interviews 3.42

Assessment centers 3.42

Specific aptitude tests 3.08

Personality tests 2.93

General cognitive ability tests 2.89

Biographical information blanks 2.84

Source: Terpstra (1996), “The Search for Effective Methods” page 16-18.

Interviews:

Interviews are mostly expected and widely accepted by many job applicants. They provide an opportunity for a two-way exchange of information between the applicant and the assessor (the interviewee and the interviewer). Interviews also, grant the opportunity for additional skills such as oral communication skills, which could not be measured through a pencil-and-paper or computerized tools to be measured as well. They have been verified to produce applicable deductions for a number of organizational results, when accurately structured and managed. Again, interviews could shrink industrial costs by discovering people for employment, sponsorship and or educating those who possess the needed expertise and capabilities. Interviews are also normally less likely to be different in outcome by gender and race than other types of tests (Taylor, 2002).

The challenges and weaknesses associated with the use of selection tools:

In today’s economy, as changing demographics, globalization, and technological evolution exert new forces on the selection process, finding and hiring skilled and talented workforce is more challenging than ever before.

‘The recruitment and selection of employees is fundamental to the functioning of an organization, and there are compelling reasons for getting it right. Inappropriate selection decisions reduce organizational effectiveness, invalidate reward and development strategies, are frequently unfair on the individual recruit and can be distressing for managers who have to deal with unsuitable employees’ (Pilbeam and Corbridge, 2006 in Rees and French, 2010).

Gatewood, Field and Barrick (2008) reviewed some challenges and weaknesses of the various selection tools (assessment methods) the same way as Schmidt and Hunter (1998) also did as follows;

Work Sample Tests:

Work sample tests are rigid to design for some entry-level positions. Mostly, they aim at the selection measures rather than the knowledge that can be obtained on the job. Their consequences are occasionally hard to evaluate, mostly when various candidates are more known with the context for the test (Gatewood, Field and Barrick, 2008).

Cognitive Ability Tests:

Cognitive ability tests sometimes may not be liable to be managed or scored in-house, and this incurs extra costs. They may call for administrators to be taught in their usage to manage them perfectly (Gatewood et al, 2008).

Structured Interviews:

According to Schmidt and Hunter, structured interviews’ questions about job knowledge, if not carefully designed when selecting to entry level positions could lead to poor prediction on job performance. Structured interviews are relatively resources intensive to design and administer. They may be more technical for candidates who live in rural areas through telephone or video interviews which may also be costly (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).Job Knowledge Tests Job knowledge tests need careful attention when evaluating inexperienced or entry level employees. They are relatively time consuming and expensive to construct. Their pre-designed tests are slightly less valid as a predictor of job performance than the tests created specifically for such role in an organization (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).

Unstructured Interviews:

Unstructured Interviews do not comply with merit selection guidelines for reliable outcomes in the selection processes for employees (Gatewood et al, 2008).

Assessment Centers:

Assessment centers are comparatively costly and resource demanding. They could be complex to ensure standardization of test-items across time and locations. They correlate greatly with general mental ability tests and then do not add much precision when coupled with general mental ability tests (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).

Biographical Data:

According to Schmidt and Hunter (2008), biographical data are moderately complex and time consuming to create. Authentication of a candidate’s responses may be necessary for their administration and this may lead to a cumbersome process. Biographical data efficiency may be negotiated if agencies do not authenticate their questions and grading systems or when they draw on another agencies questions or grading systems without authentication.

They also correlate extremely with general mental ability tests and hence do not add much validity when joint with general mental ability tests.

Situational Judgment Tests:

When situational judgment tests are badly structured, they may offer clear answers and fall short to make out greater work performance. Candidates might therefore be enforced to choose a reply they do not concur with when there is a little variety of existing answers during the selection process (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).

Reference Checks:

According to Gatewood, Field and Barrick (2008), reference checks are only temperate predictive validity. In addition, the personality of referee(s) should be confirmed (for example, by using a mobile or e-mailing to a work address) and relationship (professional and personal) to the job applicant also verified. Moreover, several employees may be unwilling to provide complete references.

Interests Tests:

Interest tests are poor predictors on job performance (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998).

Graphology:

Gatewood, Field and Barrick (2008) outlined that, it entails specialist knowledge in the area of graphology for its administration in the selection process. Graphology is also a very weak forecaster of job performance.

Legal requirements associated with assessment tools:

Eyde et al (1994) in Pulakos (2005) affirmed that, it is very essential for every human resource expert concerned with the recruitment and selection of workers to have a comprehension of the lawful matters and prerequisites that preside over the application of selection tools in business entities. All human resource experts should be concerned with two main documents. The first of this article is the ‘standardized guiding principle on worker selection practices’. This article includes a complete body of national rules identifying the underlying rules and regulations for hiring systems of business entities enclosed under the ‘Civil Rights Acts’. The second article that every human resource expert who is involved in employees’ selection must be well-known with is the ‘Disabilities Act’. This ‘Act’ produces considerable requirements by providing a reasonable room for applicants with disabilities in the selection process (Daley et al, 1988). For instance, when a job demands an expertise that a disabled individual cannot execute, the company is not oblige to create a rational room to permit that expertise to be measured. Nevertheless, if there are means to contain disabilities both on the profession and in the evaluation process, the company must offer for that (Williams, 2003).

METHODOLOGY:

Using less valid and unreliable selection tools (assessment methods) in the selection process may lead to the selection of unqualified and less competent personnel for the organization and this could also result in low productivity ratio, high cost of production, high labor turnover, poor management of organizational resources, loss of competitive advantage to rivals, loss of loyal customers since inferior goods and services will be produced and among other things.

Hence, for any organization to achieve its stated objectives the selection process intends there is the need for management to employ valid and reliable selection tools that will help choose the best of employees to strive towards achieving organizational goals.

This study consequently, assesses the validity and reliability of selection tools used at The All Nations University College, Koforidua and The Koforidua Polytechnic. The research design is a descriptive research survey which applied a quantitative method to assess, analyze and interpret the selection practices and tools adopted by All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic in Ghana. Quantitative research method measures and analyzes data by expressing them numerically and it ascertains the correlations between existing non-manipulated variables. Hence, this study used questionnaires as a quantitative tool for the assessment and collection of data from the sampled population to probe deep into the topic under study. This study employed both primary and secondary sources of data in accomplishing the research.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

Selection tools used by All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic:

The study sought to identify the various selection tools used by All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic in their selection efforts. This section presents the types of selection tools used by these institutions.

Figure 4.4: Selection tools used by the institutions. Source: Field survey, 2015.

The study found that seven main types of selection tools are used for selecting teaching staff whilst four are used in the selection of non-teaching staff among these institutions. In identifying the types of selection tools used to select employees at the institutions, 15.6 percent of teaching staff and 10.0 percent of non-teaching staff revealed that their institution used Job knowledge test in selecting them. They explained that Job knowledge test is preferred by their institutions because it allows recruiters or hirers to evaluate employees at first hand their knowledge and technical expertise with regards to the jobs they are being hired for. The employees selected using these methods expressed that this tool is preferred as it reduces the amount of training the newly recruits are to receive before they commence work. They reported this tool allows hirers to test and evaluate the ability of candidates with regards to the body of knowledge they are required to possess in order to perform the prescribed tasks and jobs.

The study also found that, All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic use Biographical data as a tool in selecting employees. This is reported by 1.6 percent of teaching staff and 30.0 percent of non-teaching staff who testified that this tool was used to select them as employees for their institution. A cursory look at the chart revealed that although most of the non-teaching staffs were selected using this tool, this method is the least used in selecting the teaching staffs. Employees of the HR departments of these institutions revealed that this method is particularly cumbersome and complicated and demands a lot of objectivity and hence it’s only used in selecting employees when large pool of applicants are available for selection.

This finding is consistent with the views of Schmidt and Hunter (2008) who assert to this that, biographical data are complex and time consuming to construct and the authentication of applicants’ answers may be needed for their administration and this may lead to a cumbersome process.

Furthermore, the study found that All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic adopt structured interview as a selection tool for hiring employees. This was given by 23.4 percent of teaching staffs who identified structured interview as a tool used by these institutions to select them. They reported that structured interview is often used in conjunction with other selection tools particularly cognitive ability tests to select candidates as employees. The findings also revealed structured interview to be the second most common selection tool used in selecting teaching staff besides cognitive ability test as well as the fifth most used selection tool for the general selection of employees at All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic (refer to figure 4.4 above for statistics). This finding is contrary to assertion of Eder and Ferries (1989) and other authors that structured interviews are most used selection tool in organizations.

Moreover, the study established that accomplishment records are also used as a selection tool at All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic. This is identified by 11.7 percent of the teaching staffs as the tool used in their selection. This selection tool is also preferred for the selection of teaching staff or line staff as it attempts to identify and evaluate candidates’ accomplishment in previous jobs, skills and other life achievements. Employees reported that in some cases accomplishment record attempts to identify the number of academic publications an applicant has in a particular course to determine his or her versatility in the course(s) he or she is recruited to teach at their respective institutions.

This selection tool is also identified as being used in conjunction with other tools particularly with structured interviews, biographical data and among others.

In addition, the study identified aptitude tests as one of the selection tools used by All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic. Aptitude tests are used to assess the potentials of an individual to perform a job and often covers numerical, clerical, mechanical, and problem solving and among others. These tests were identified by 14.1 percent of the teaching staffs and 30.0 percent of the non-teaching staffs who attested to the fact that these tests have been used in selecting them to work for All Nations University College and Koforidua polytechnic. Aptitude tests are also found to be one of the most used tests in selecting non-teaching staff at these institutions.

Finally, 7.8 percent of the teaching staffs and 30.0 percent of the non-teaching staffs reported that their institutions used work sample tests in selecting them as employees. The teaching staffs in this category reported that during their selection process they were asked to demonstrate to the hiring panel by teaching a particular topic in their specialized fields in front of the panel after which questions were asked. This is to allow candidates to demonstrate to the panel that they possess the required teaching and other skills to readily fill the position they are being selected for without immediate training.

Overall, the study found out that seven main selection tools namely, job knowledge tests, biographical data, structured interviews, accomplishment tests, cognitive ability tests, work sample tests and aptitude tests were adopted by the two institutions under study in their selection processes. However, it was also found that whereas all these seven tools were used in selecting academic/teaching staffs, only four of these tools such as job knowledge tests, biographical data, aptitude tests and work sample tests were used in selecting non-teaching staffs at All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic.

The validity and reliability of selection tools used by All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic:

This section focused on demonstrating the validity and reliability of selection tools used at All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic.

The validity of selection tools due to their effectiveness in achieving specific purpose at both institutions under study:

Validity is also said to be a measure of effectiveness of a given approach. To this end a selection tool is valid if it helps the institutions to select competent staff in a consistent and effective manner who contributes to increased organizational performance. The study therefore sought to find out if these selection tools help in hiring competent staff consistently and effectively and also if these selection tools increase organizational performance at both institutions under study.

Figure 4.5: Validity of the selection tools. Source: Field survey, 2015.

The study revealed that 80.0 percent of heads and employees from human resource departments of All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic reported that selections tools such as cognitive ability tests, biographical data and structured interview among others are very effective in helping them to hire competent staff for their institutions. Whereas 20.0 percent of heads and employees in HR departments from both institutions also reported that these tools less effectively help them to hire competent staff.

Also with regards to the general effectiveness and consistency of these selection tools, 70 percent and 30.0 percent of heads and employees in the HR departments of these institutions reported that these tools are very effective and moderately effective respectively. They reported that selection tools such as cognitive ability tests, biographical data, work sample tests, Aptitude tests and accomplishment records among others are effective and consistent in providing selector with greater understanding of individual applicants, they provide objective means of evaluation and measuring individual characteristics and abilities and also sufficiently predicts the extent to which candidates will be successful on the job.

They further expressed that these tools do not only aid the selection of competent staff but also provide the impetus to identify people for leadership positions, further training and development, among others.

Finally, validity is said to be the link between the predictor (selection tools) and job satisfaction. To end the study inquired from the HR departments of these two institutions if selection tools affect or engender increased performance. The study found that 80.0 percent and 20.0 percent of heads and employees from the HR departments respectively reported that selection tools are very effective and less effective increasing organizational performance of their institutions.

They reported that the selection of competent staff through the use of these tools directly results in increased organizational performance which is the aggregate of individual employee performance. To this end, selection tools such as structured interviews, cognitive ability tests, biographical data, accomplishment records, aptitude tests, work sample tests and job knowledge tests can be said to be valid in the selection of employees at All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic.

The perception on the reliability of selection tools at both institutions under study:

The study inquired from respondents as relating to their insight on reliability of the selection tools used by their institutions. The study thus revealed in figure 4.5 below that, 95.0 percent of teaching staff and 98.0 percent of non-teaching staff reported that the tools used are reliable by indicating ‘yes’ as their response to the question of whether they perceive the selection tools as reliable. The employees reported that these tools are reliable because they are consistent, free and fair, and unbiased. On the other hand, 5.0 percent of the teaching staff and 2.0 percent of the non-teaching staff also perceived the selection tools as unreliable by indicating a ‘no’ response to the question asked them. They explained that these tools are unreliable because they are sometimes easily manipulated to suit the needs of the selectors whilst majority of these tools also allow biases to be introduced into them. They further reiterated that, these selection tools are regarded as being bias because they are not devoid of human judgments but in fact are full of it.

Figure 4.6 Perception on reliability of the selection tools from respondents of both institutions. Source: Field survey, 2015.

More so, the study attempted to understand the extent to which these selections tools are reliable. The study therefore found that 90.0 percent of teaching staff and 97.0 percent of non-teaching staff also perceived the selection tools to be highly reliable whereas 8.0 percent of the teaching staff and 3.0 percent of the non-teaching staff perceived the selection tools as moderately reliable.

However, 2.0 percent of the teaching staff perceived the selection tools as less reliable (see figure 4.5 for statistics). The reliability ratings given by the employees stemmed from the fact that these tools result in the selection of competent staff, affect and increase performance, engender consistency and fairness in the assessment and selection process.

Nonetheless, to determine further the reliability of these selection tools used at All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic, a reliability test and analysis was done on those seven selection tools by the researcher using Cronbach’s Alpha score: job knowledge tests, biographical data, structured interview, cognitive ability tests, accomplishment records, aptitude tests, and work sample tests. Table 4.1 below shows the result of Cronbach’s Alpha test or analysis done by the researcher.

Table 4.1 Cronbach’s alpha test on reliability of selection tools at both institutions

Selection tools	Cronbach’s alpha score	Number of items
The seven selection tools used by both institutions	0.822	7

Source: Field survey, 2015.

In order to prove the reliability of selection tools used by All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic, a Cronbach’s Alpha test of reliability test was performed. A test cut-off point of 0.7 as recommended by DeVilles (2003) was adopted to be an indicator of high internal reliability. Referring to table 4.1 above, it can be revealed that all the items used as selection tools by both institutions recorded an alpha scores of 0.822 which is greater than 0.7. This indicates that the variables are internally consistent and significant, and are highly reliable in selecting the right candidates for the right jobs at both institutions. It also suggests that any of the selection tools mentioned above can be used by the institutions under study in their selection processes and it will offer the same results as the other tools.

Some challenges associated with the selection tools used at All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic:

The study sought to ascertain if there were some challenges with the selection tools used by the institutions under study that affected their validity and reliability. The study revealed that three main factors served as challenges that derail the ability of selection tools such as structured interviews, biographical data, cognitive ability tests, work sample tests, among others in validly and reliably aiding selectors to select competent staff. These challenges include the following:

The study showed that 30.0 percent of heads and employees from the HR departments of both institutions reported that selection tools are very expensive to administer (see figure 4.6 below for statistics). They explained that the costs associated with organizing and using even a simple structured interview involves the payment of overtime allowance for employees and experts to sieve through applications and careful study of applications, CVs and other pre-selection screening tasks. Also, they reported that interview panels are paid per diems and sitting allowances, and are provided refreshments and other benefits, among others.

Furthermore they also noted for a fact that, selectors are trained regularly in order for them to obtain the needed skills and knowledge to use these selection tools and these add to costs of administering these tools.

They (the HR departments of both institutions) also reported that conducting of validation of selection tools such as biographical data, cognitive ability tests, and aptitude tests among others can be very expensive and sometimes requires the hiring of professionals (experts) who charge high fees. They mentioned that all these add to cost and sometimes certain steps are skipped, and instead less qualified selectors are used in order to reduce or minimize costs which consequently increase inconsistencies and errors and hence reduce the validity and reliability of such selection tools.

However, 30.0 percent of employees and heads of HR departments from the two institutions on the other side also highlighted that, most selection tools are difficult to design thereby reducing their validity and reliability (see from figure 4.6 below for statistics). They stated that most selection tools are complex, difficult and requires mastery in their design. They explained further that because of the complexities embedded in these tools omissions and commissions do occur that results in invalidity and non-reliability of these tools. This finding is to some extent in tune with the assertions of Schmidt and Hunter (2008). Schmidt & Hunter (2008) accounted that biographical data, which is one of the selection tools used at the All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic, are relatively difficult and time consuming to construct. They also noted that verification of applicants’ responses may be required for their administration and this may lead to a cumbersome process (Schmidt and Hunter, 2008).

CONCLUSION:

Selection tools used by the All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic:

The study found out that seven main selections tools are used by All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic. These selections tools include job knowledge tests, biographical data, structured interview, cognitive ability tests, accomplishment records, aptitude tests, and work sample tests. Also it was found that, whereas all these seven tools were used in selecting teaching/academic staff, only four selection tools namely; job knowledge tests, biographical data, aptitude tests and work sample tests were used in selecting non-teaching/non-academic staff at All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic.

The validity and reliability of selection tools used by the under studied institutions:

Furthermore, this study in assessing the validity of the selection tools at All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic found that the seven selection tools were very effective, which means they are all valid. The study showed that the selection tools were valid in the hiring of competent staff, very effective and applicable in achieving the specific purpose for which they are used, ensure preciseness and efficiency by providing the selector with greater understanding of individual applicants, provide objective means of evaluation and measuring individual characteristics and abilities, and they sufficiently predict the extent to which candidates will be successful on the job and also increasing organizational performance as well.

The results of the study revealed that all the selection tools at both institutions under study were perceived by the respondents to be highly reliable since they were exceedingly consistent, unbiased, free and fair during selection processes.

More so, in order for the researcher to attest further the reliability of these selection tools, Cronbach’s Alpha test was also conducted on these tools and they were proven extremely reliable with a score of 0.822. These suggest that the selection tools were highly valid and reliable.

Challenges associated with the selection tools used by the institutions under study:

The study showed that three factors serve as challenges to the validity and reliability of selection tools at the All Nations University College and Koforidua Polytechnic in Ghana. These challenges include high cost of administering selection tools; difficulty in designing selection tools and rigidity of selection tools due to their over standardization.

Strategies to improve the validity and reliability of selection tools at the selected institutions:

Finally, this study identified three main strategies to improve the validity and reliability of selection tools. These include effective identification of mode of assessment; effective cost-benefit analysis of selection tools and regular updates and review of selection tools to accurately match the activities and the needs of the jobs for which employees are being selected.

Organizations the world-over are facing increasing competition from within and outside its country of operations. Thus, this has led to an increasing search for sources of competitive advantage. Notwithstanding many human resource experts have expressed that employees (human resources) are a firm’s most valuable assets and provides the most sustainable and cost effective sources of competitive advantage. This has also resulted in organizations and leaders (top management) finding means of selecting the right caliber of people to fill job vacancies, in order to provide competitive advantage and also to increase the bottom line. However, many of these organizations go-about the selection process. This therefore study concludes that, unless the right selections tools with high validity and reliability are used in the selection process, organizations cannot select the right caliber of employees and hence will be unable to achieve and sustain competitive advantage.

REFERENCES:

1. Armstrong, M. (2001). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice: London: Kogan Page.

2. Ashby, F. C., and Pell, A. R. (2001). Embracing Excellence. Become an Employer of Choice to attract and Keep the Best Talent. Paramus, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Press.

3. Asher, J. J., and Sciarrino, J. A. (1974). Realistic work sample tests: A review. Personnel Psychology. 27, 519-533.

4. Atuahene, A. (2013). "A Descriptive Assessment of Higher Education Access, Participation, Equity, and Disparity in Ghana". Sage Open. Retrieved from www. 23 May 2014.

5. Ballantyne, (2009) cited in Rees, G., and French, R. (2010). Leading, Managing and Developing People. 3rd edition. CIPD. Page170.

6. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., and Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next? International journal of selection and assessment. Vol. 9, No 1/2.

7. Bernthal, P. R., and Wellins, R. S. (2001). Retaining talent: A benchmarking study. Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.

8. Bertua, C., Anderson, N., and Salgado, J.F. (2005). The Predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology. A UK meta-analysis.

9. Bigazi, C. (2011). Recruitment and Selection Process-Construction: Bigazi Process Modeler. Retrieved from http://www.bigazi.com/html/asp

10. Blakley, B. R., Quinones, M. S., Crawford, M. S. and Jago, I. A. (1994). The validity of isometric strength tests: Personnel Psychology, 47, 247-274.

11. Bohlander, G., and Snell, S. (2004). Managing Human Resources: International Student Edition. 13th Edition: South-West Thomson Corporation, USA. Page 186.

12. Braimah, I. (2004). Challenges of the 21st Century Ghanaian Universities: Journal of Science and Technology. Accra, Ghana. Vol. 24, No 2; Page 99-105.

13. Bratton, J. and Gold, J. (2003). Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. 3rd Edition. London: Palgrave.

14. Byham, W. C. (1992). The Assessment Center Method and Methodology: New applications and technologies (Monograph VII). Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.

15. Campion, M. A. (1983). Personnel selection for physically demanding jobs: Review and recommendations. Personnel Psychology, 36, 527-550.

16. Campion, M. A., Pursell, E. D., and Brown, B. K. (1988). Structured interviewing: Raising the psychometric properties of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 48, 289-308.

17. Cascio, W. (1998). Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management. New York: Prentice Hall.

18. Chan, D., and Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper and pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143-159.

19. Chan, W. (1996). “External Recruitment versus Internal Promotion”: Journal of Labor Economics. Chinese University of Hong-Kong. Vol.14, Issue 04, Page 555- 570

20. Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, Pg. 13.

21. Daley, L., Dolland, M., Kraft, J., Nester, M. A., and Schneider, R. (1988). Employment testing of persons with disabling conditions. Alexandria, VA: International Personnel Management Association.

22. Delery, J. E., and Doty. D. H. (1996). Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency and Configuration Performance Predictions: Academy of Management Journal. Vol.39, 802-835.

23. Dessler, G. (1984). Personnel Management, Reston. VA: Reston Publishing Co.

24. Dessler, G. (2000). Human Resource Management. 8th Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Incorporated

25. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications, (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

26. Drucker, P. (1999). Knowledge-Worker productivity: The Biggest challenge. California Management Review 41(2): 79-94.

27. Edenborough, R. (1999). Assessment Methods in Recruitment, Selection & Performance: A manager’s guide to psychometric testing, interviews and assessment centers. London and Sterling, VA: Kogan page.

28. Eder, R. W., and Ferris, G. R. (Eds.). (1989). The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing.

29. Eyde, L. D., Nester, M. A., Heaton, S. M., and Nelson, A.V. (1994). Guide for administering written employment examinations to persons with disabilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

30. Gatewood, R. D., Field, H. S., and Barrick, M. (2008). Human Resource Selection. Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH.

31. Gaugler, B. B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thornton, G. G., III, and Bentson, C. (1987). Meta-analysis of assessment center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 493-511.

32. Gilliland, S. W., and Cherry, B. (2000). Managing customer selections. In Kehoe, J. K. (Ed). Managing selections in changing Organisation. San Francisco: Josses-Boss, Pg.158-196.

33. Goldberg, L. R., and Saucier, G. (1995). So what do you propose we use instead. A reply to Block. Psychological Bulletin, 177, 221-225.

34. Gottredson, L. S. (Ed.). (1982). The g factor in employment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Page 29(3).

35. Gould, R. (1984). Gaining a Competitive Edge through Human Resource Strategies. Human Resource Planning.

36. Heneman, H. G., III, and Judge, T. A. (in press). Staffing organizations. 5th Edition. Middleton, WI: Mendota House, and New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

37. Hough, L. M. (1984). Development and evaluation of the “accomplishment record”. Methods of selecting and promoting professionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 135-146.

38. Hough, L. M. (1992). The big five personality variables-construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 135-155.

39. Hunter, J. (1986). Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Aptitudes, Job Knowledge, and Job Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340-362.

40. Hunter, J., and Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.

41. Hogan, J. (1991). Physical abilities, cited in Dunnette, M. D., and Hough, L. M. (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Vol. 2, Pg. 753-831.

42. Howard, A. (1983). Work samples and simulations in competency evaluation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 780-796.

43. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., and Cable, D. M. (2000). The employment interview: A review of recent research and recommendations for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 383-406.

44. Kaplan, R. S., and Norton, D. P. (2004). Measuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assets. Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 52-64.

45. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Boston and Harvard Business School Press.

46. Luszez, M. A., and Kleiner, B. H. (2001). How to hire employees effectively. Management Research News, Vol. 23, No 12, Pg. 19-26.

47. Mathis, R. L., and Jackson, J. H. (2004). Human Resource Management: Tenth Edition, International Student Edition. Singapore: Thomson Learning South-West, Pg. 195.

48. Miyake, D. (2002). Implementing Strategy with the Balanced Scorecard: An Introduction to the Strategy-Focused Organization. DM Review.

49. MoE, (2013). "Education Sector Performance Report". Ministry of Education, Republic of Ghana. Retrieved 27 May 2014.

50. MoE and NCTE (2013). Repositioning Tertiary Education for National Development: Communiqué on Tertiary Education Policy Dialogue. Accra, Ghana.

51. Morgan, L. (2007). Global Trends in Effective Candidate Identification, Assessment and Deployment Methods. MA, Organizational & Industrial Psychology. Geoff Easton: Retrieved from www.lloydmorgan.com.

52. Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., and Carter, G. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: A low fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640-647.

53. Mullins, L. J. (1999). Management and Organizational Behavior. 5th Edition, Essex: Pearson Education.

54. Nuffic (2013). "Country Module: Ghana". Netherlands organization for international cooperation in higher Education. Retrieved 25th May, 2014.

55. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., and Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology (monograph), 78, 531-537.

56. Paunonen, S.V., and Ashton, M.C. (1998). The structured assessment of personality across cultures: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 1.

57. Pilbeam and Corbridge (2006). pg 142 cited in Rees, G., and French, R. (2010). Leading, Managing and Developing People: 3rd edition. CIPD. Page 175.

58. Potosky, D., and Bobko, P. (2004). Selection testing via the Internet: Practical considerations and exploratory empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 57, 1003-1034.

59. Pulakos, E. D. (2005). Selection assessment methods: A guide to implementing formal assessments to build a high-quality workforce. SHRM Foundation. Page 17.

60. Raymark, M. J., Schmit, M. J., and Guion, R. M. (1997). Identifying potentially useful personality constructs for employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 50, 723-736.

61. Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A., and Teachout, M. S. (1994). Predicting job performance: Not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 518-524.

62. Rioux, S. M., and Bernthal, P. (1999). Recruitment and Selection Practices: Survey Report HR Benchmark Group Issue 2. Vol. 2. Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.

63. Sackett, P. R., and Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 49, 787-829.

64. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. 3rd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT-Prentice Hall.

65. Schmidt, F. L., and Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.

66. Schuler, M. and Randall, S. (1987). Personnel and Human Resource Management. Third Edition.

67. Shoenfeldt, L. F. (1999). From Dustbowl Empiricism to Rational Constructs In Biodata. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 147-167.

68. Smither, J. W., Millshap, R. E., Pearlman, K. and Stoffey, R. (1993), Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures. Personnel Psychology., p 46.

69. Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D., and Owens, W. A. (Eds.). (1994). Biodata Handbook. Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.

70. Stone, R. J. (1998). Human Resource Management. 3rd Edition. Jacaranda Wiley Ltd., Sydney and Melbourne, Australia: Printed in Singapore. Pg. 217-222.

71. Stoner, I., and Freeman, B. (1992). Tools for Manpower Planning. The World Bank Models. Washington, D.C.

72. Stredwick, J. (2000). An introduction to Human Resource Management. First edition: Jordan Hill, Oxford: Butter worth-Heinemann. Pg. 128:141

73. Taylor, P. (2002). Evolving personnel selection practices in New Zealand organisations and recruitment firms. New Zealand Journal of Psychology.

74. Terpstra, D. E. (1994). Human Resource Management: A key to competitiveness. Management Decision, Vol. 32, No 9, Pg. 10-14

75. Terpstra, D. E. (1996). Recruitment and selection: The search for effective methods, HR Focus, Vol. 73 No. 5, Pg. 16-18.

76. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., and Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality Measures as Predictors of Job Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.

77. Thornton, G. C., III. (1992). Assessment centers in human resources management. Addison-Wesley.

78. Thornton, G. C., III, and Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment centers and managerial performance. New York: Academic Press.

79. Walker, J. (2009). Human Resource Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Page 95.

80. Weichmann, D., Schmitt, N., and Harvey, V. S. (2001). Incremental validity of situational judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 410-417.

81. Williams, S. K. (2003). Tips for minimizing abuses under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).

82. Wood, R., and Payne, T. (1998). Competency-based Recruitment and Selection: A Practical Guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Received on 30.01.2019 Modified on 16.03.2019

Asian Journal of Management. 2019; 10(3): 208-221.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2019.00032.5