In this article, I first demonstrate that statistical significance testing of differ- ences between predictor scores (whether based on the standard error of mea- surement or any other statistic) is irrelevant to, and inconsistent with, the traditional, optimizing selection model. Second, I demonstrate that all band- ing procedures used in (or advocated for) personnel selection, including the sliding-band procedures advocated by Cascio, Outtz, Zedeck, and Goldstein (1991-this issue), are fatally flawed logically. I show that, when the number of applicants is large, all banding procedures logically lead to the absurd con- clusion that the only justifiable form of selection is random selection. Third, I present evidence that the empirical data set used by Cascio et al. to evaluate different selection strategies is anomalous and leads to results very different from those to be expected in typical and representative data. Specifically, the effect is to produce misleadingly small differences between the strategies in mean test scores of selectees and, therefore, in selection utility. In particular, selection utility losses from all forms of banding, in comparison to top-down selection, are understated. Finally, I show that, apart from the lethal logical flaw in banding procedures, Cascio et al. misinterpreted the meaning and na- ture of statistical significance testing.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 49 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.