Web‐based Multisource Reference Checking: An investigation of psychometric integrity and applied benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reference checking is a near‐universal practice within personnel selection systems, and legal pressures to gather job‐relevant and structured feedback from references is mounting. Despite this state of affairs, reference checking is a woefully under‐researched method for obtaining psychometrically sound and behaviorally informative data that predict task, team, and leadership behavior at work. From studies of job candidates in applied settings, this article reports on the reliability, validity, and compliance of multisource reference feedback gathered using a web‐based methodology. Acceptable levels of internal consistency, inter‐rater reliability, and test–retest reliability of the reference‐checking instrument were realized. Results of survival analyses found support for prediction of involuntary, but not voluntary turnover. No practically significant differences were found in overall mean scores across demographic subgroups. Finally, the web‐based reference‐checking system evinced high degrees of efficiencies across a range of metrics (e.g., reference response time, reference response rate, candidate response time).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".