CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218Employer Branding and e-HRMAI and HR TechnologiesMedical Education and Admissions

Personnel selection in the digital age: a review of validity and applicant reactions, and future research challenges

Open access
Woods, Stephen A., Ahmed, Sara, Nikolaou, Ioannis, Costa, Ana Cristina, Anderson, Neil R.·2020·European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
DOI 10.1080/1359432x.2019.1681401
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present a targeted review of recent developments and advances in digital selection procedures (DSPs) with particular attention to advances in internet-based techniques. By reviewing the emergence of DSPs in selection research and practice, we highlight five main categories of methods (online applications, online psychometric testing, digital interviews, gamified assessment and social media). We discuss the evidence base for each of these DSP groups, focusing on construct and criterion validity, and applicant reactions to their use in organizations. Based on the findings of our review, we present a critique of the evidence base for DSPs in industrial, work and organizational psychology and set out an agenda for advancing research. We identify pressing gaps in our understanding of DSPs, and ten key questions to be answered. Given that DSPs are likely to depart further from traditional non-digital selection procedures in the future, a theme in this agenda is the need to establish a distinct and specific literature on DSPs, and to do so at a pace that reflects the speed of the underlying technological advancement. In concluding, we, therefore, issue a call to action for selection researchers in work and organizational psychology to commence a new and rigorous multidisciplinary programme of scientific study of DSPs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1359432x.2019.1681401

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Technological developments, mostly online, have greatly increased the reach, scalability and variety of selection methods available to employers.

    “Meanwhile, technological developments, largely delivered online, have radically increased the reach, scalability and variety of selection methods available to employers69.”

    From Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory (2022) · cites this paper as [69]

  • Research on candidates' reactions to new selection methods has not kept pace with rapid technological change.

    “Because technologies have changed rapidly, research on candidates’ reactions to these new selection methods has not kept up69.”

    From Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory (2022) · cites this paper as [69]

  • The perceived job-relatedness of an assessment is associated with whether candidates view the assessment positively.

    “For example, the perceived job-relatedness of an assessment is associated with whether or not candidates view the assessment positively69,80.”

    From Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory (2022) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Online Applications section says applicants’ perceptions relate to system design, content, and usability, but it does not link perceived job-relatedness to positive views of an assessment. Searches for job-relatedness, job relevance, and face validity did not locate that link in our copy; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ahmed, S., Anderson, N., & Costa, A. C. (2014). Privacy and fairness perceptions of internet-based selection procedures. Poster presented at the 29th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, Hawaii.
  2. Ahmed, S., Anderson, N., & Costa, A. C., (2018). Cross-Country Influence on Applicant Fairness Reactions to Internet-Based Selection Methods? Paper presented at the 29 th annual conference of the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
  3. García, D. A., García, J. C. A., Izquierdo, A. L. G., & Rodríguez, J. (2019). LinkedIn "Big Four": Job Performance Validation in the ICT Sector. Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones= Journal of work and organizational psychology, 35, 53-64.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Woods, S. A., Ahmed, S., Nikolaou, I., Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • Athens University of Economics and Business (GR)
  • University of Bradford (GB)
Corresponding author
Woods, Stephen A.
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-11-06
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
64-77
ISSN
  • 1359-432X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0643
DOI
10.1080/1359432x.2019.1681401
OpenAlex
W2986660526
Cited by
218
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 9
FWCI
23.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Bradford Scholars (University of Bradford) (submittedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
Keywords
personnel selection, web application, gamified assessment, social media recruitment, construct validity, criterion validity, applicant reactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review