1 / 10

Strategic Selection Strategies in Multiple Regression Decision-Making

Understand methods and utility in obtaining acceptance through multiple predictors and regression techniques. Explore selection strategies, validity, utility, and decision accuracy analyses.

edith
Télécharger la présentation

Strategic Selection Strategies in Multiple Regression Decision-Making

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DECISION-MAKING AND UTILITY • METHOD SELECTION • OBTAINING ACCEPTANCE

  2. MULTIPLE PREDICTORS • ONE PREDICTOR – REGRESSION^ y = a + b(x) • > 1 – MULTIPLE REGRESSION^y = a + b1(x1)+ b2(x2) IF a = 2, bx1 =.4 , bx2 = .7 IF X1 = 30 and X2 = 40 y = 2 + .4x1 + .7x2 y = 2 + .4(30) + .7(40) = 42 • NO THEORY TO GUIDE • APPLICATION GUIDES SELECTION

  3. SELECTION STRATEGIES #1 • MULTIPLE REGRESSION MINIMIZES ERROR COMPENSATORY • MULTIPLE CUTOFF CUT FOR EACH SET 10 FOR INTERVIEW 25 FOR CA TEST DIFFICULT TO VALIDLY SET

  4. SELECTION STRATEGIES #2 • MULTIPLE HURDLE ADMINISTERED OVER TIME + DON’T ALL TESTS - TIME AND COST • DOUBLE STAGE TWO CUT SCORES • PROFILE MATCHING PLOT TO AVG SET VALID PRED

  5. SELECTION OUTCOMES • OUTCOMES TRUE POSITIVES (1) FALSE POSITIVES (2) TRUE NEGATIVES (3) FALSE NEGATIVES (4) • HOW ACCURATE ARE DECISIONS?

  6. HOW ACCURATE ARE DECISIONS? PROPORTION OF CORRECT DECISIONS 1 + 3 PCTOT ---------------- 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ALL OUTCOMES EQUAL PROPORTION OF ACCEPTED ARE SATISFACTORY 1 PCACC ---------------- 1 + 2

  7. UTILITY #1 • INDEX OF FORECASTING EFFICIENCY e = 1 - (1-rxy2)1/2 • COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION rxy2 • TAYLOR-RUSSELL TABLES • Brogden-Cronbach-Gleser __ U = N T rxy sdy Z - Nt(Cp)

  8. UTILITY #2 • COMPARE TWO TESTSUnew - Uold • PER SELECTEE _U/selectee = T rxy sdy Z – Cp • HIGH ULTILITY WITH LOW VALIDITYrxy Zx sdy U/selectee MID LEVEL JOB (systems analyst) .20 1.00 $25,000 $5,000 LOW LEVEL JOB (janitor) .60 1.00 $2,000 $1,200

  9. SCHMIDT & HUNTER (1998) • PURPOSE EXAMINES 19 MEASURES WITHOUT PRIOR EXPERIENCE • META ANALYSIS JOB PERFORMANCE WORK SAMPLE – GMA -STRUC INT TRAINING GMA – INTEGRITY

  10. MURPHY (1986) • DISTINGUISH OFFER & ACCEPTED • CASE 1 REJECTED AT RANDOM • CASE 2 BEST REJECT • CASE 3 NEG r ABILITY/ACCEPT

More Related