Doctor of Philosophy
Psychology, Industrial and Organizational
Date of Defense
Therese Macan, Ph.D.
Two studies examined an application of procedural justice to the field of human resources by investigating participant reactions to different selection assessments administered in the same session. Following Gilliland’s model of organizational justice applied to human resources, the first study investigated how reactions to a cognitive ability assessment and a measure of Conscientiousness may alter the participants’ test-taking motivation for these assessments. Extending beyond Gilliland’s proposals, the first study assessed if these changes in test-taking motivation ultimately altered the validity of the assessments and tested a model depicting changes in the effect on reactions when two assessments are taken together. Using 347 undergraduate students enrolled in psychology and business classes from two mid-sized universities, the validities were not significantly altered based on the different assessment orders. The second study attempted to determine if the validity of assessments could be maximized by administering the assessments with a business frame-of-reference and by administering them in a specific order. Using 176 participants similar to those in the first study, the results indicated that using a contextualized measure of Conscientiousness followed by a business related cognitive ability assessment did not maximize the assessments’ validities. Despite the general lack of support for the relationships assessed by these studies, exploratory analyses indicate that future research is warranted before ruling out the impact of perceptions of procedural justice on the validities of assessments administered in the same session.
Grambow, Dana M., "An Assessment of Procedural Justice: Do Perceptions of Job Relatedness Alter Criterion-Related Validities?" (2012). Dissertations. 342.