Subject Matter Expert Judgments Regarding the Relative Importance of Competencies are not Useful for Choosing the Test Batteries that Best Predict Performance

Several recent articles have suggested that assessments of the relative importance of different abilities or competencies to a job have little bearing on the criterion-related validity of these selection tests that measure those abilities. We hypothesize that selection test batteries chosen to maximize the judged importance of knowledge, skills, and abilities will not predict performance better than batteries of tests chosen at random. The results in two independent samples consistently show that the validity of test batteries chosen based on subject matter expert judgments of importance is not different from the validity of batteries of a comparable number of tests chosen at random from a set of intercorrelated tests, or even those chosen to provide the worst possible match between test content and job content.