Abstract
AbstractExpert judges often claim to utilize expert insight to tailor judgments to maximize predictive validity for a specific context. We evaluated multi‐organizational assessment data regarding the prediction of supervisory ratings of job performance from ratings on individual assessment dimensions, finding no evidence that the average expert assessor effectively tailored judgments to specific organizations to maximize prediction. Expert judgment was outperformed in all organizational contexts by linear models of expert judgment, optimal weighted regression models, as well as simple sum composites. Critically, the dimension weighting policies of the expert assessors were not consistent with optimal weights for predicting job performance at any organization. We discuss why expertise tends not to contribute to predictive validity and describe methods for improving overall judgmental accuracy.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
