I would like to provide my insights into the staffing measurements and validation for the company. Briefly, the practical significance is the extent to which predictor adds value to prediction of job success. It is assessed by examining the sign and resulting magnitude which validities above .15 are of moderate usefulness and validities above .30 are of high usefulness. After reviewing the predictors of traditional selection which are education, work experience and interview score, the conclusion that I have derived is that the statistical significance of these scores are very medium, ranging from 0.03 to 0.32 of all the areas. The strongest validities of the predictors happen to be work experience that measured against performance with a correlation of 0.22 with <0.01 p-value and 0.25 correlation and <0.01 p-value in promotion potential. Interview score, correlated the highest at the measure of promotion potential 0.32 with a p-value of 0.01.
Factoring Tanglewood’s philosophies, the only measures which are meeting the strategy of the company in the old method are: work experience and interview score. But, Tanglewood conducted a pilot study based on the resonations of poor performance in which 10 of the stores based in the Seattle area where all administered new selection tools and they were further compared against the traditional selection method for statistical significance. This study contained 832 applicants for hirings in the Store associate positions. From the conclusion, I derive the highest validities came from the retail knowledge, biodata, applicant exam predicators. These measures rated the highest when it came to performance and promotion potential whereas the other factors remained low to medial (Citizenship/Absence). For the outcome that Tanglewood, is looking for I think the measures should be for hiring process should be: retail knowledge, biodata, and applicant exam.