Winfred Arthur

Objective: As a constructive replication and extension of Arthur, Edwards, Bell, Villado, and Bennett (2005), the objective of the current study was to further investigate the efficacy of team relatedness and team workflow ratings (along with their composite) as metrics of interdependence. Background: Although an analysis of task and job interdependence has important implications and uses in domains such as job design, selection, and training, the job analysis literature has been slow to develop an effective method to identify team-based tasks and jobs. Method: To achieve the study’s objectives, 140 F-16 fighter pilots (35 four-person teams) rated 34 task and activity statements in terms of their team relatedness and team workflow. Results: The results indicated that team relatedness and team workflow effectively differentiated between tasks with varying levels of interdependency (as identified by instructor pilots who served as subject matter experts) within the same job. In addition, teams that accurately perceived the level of interdependency performed better on a four-ship F-16 flight-training program than those that did not. Conclusion: Team relatedness and team workflow ratings can effectively differentiate between tasks with varying levels of interdependency. Application: Like traditional individual task or job analysis, this information can serve as the basis for specified human resource functions and interventions, and as diagnostic indicators as well.

The use of unproctored internet‐based testing (UIT) for employee selection is quite widespread. Although this mode of testing has advantages over onsite testing, researchers and practitioners continue to be concerned about potential malfeasance (e.g., cheating and response distortion) under high‐stakes conditions. Therefore, the primary objective of the present study was to investigate the magnitude and extent of high‐ and low‐stakes retest effects on the scores of a UIT speeded cognitive ability test and two UIT personality measures. These data permitted inferences about the magnitude and extent of malfeasant responding. The study objectives were accomplished by implementing two within‐subjects design studies (Study 1N=296; Study 2N=318) in which test takers first completed the tests as job applicants (high‐stakes) or incumbents (low‐stakes) then as research participants (low‐stakes). For the speeded cognitive ability measure, the pattern of test score differences was more consonant with a psychometric practice effect than a malfeasance explanation. This result is likely due to the speeded nature of the test. And for the UIT personality measures, the pattern of higher high‐stakes scores compared with lower low‐stakes scores is similar to those reported for proctored tests in the extant literature. Thus, our results indicate that the use of a UIT administration does not uniquely threaten personality measures in terms of elevated scores under high‐stakes testing that are higher than those observed for proctored tests in the extant literature.