Post basket case study

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Post-basket case study is a test procedure used in assessment centers to examine the work ability and effectiveness of an applicant under time stress . In the original paper-pencil method, the applicant receives a filled mail basket containing “typical” fictitious documents from the company's incoming files. These can be letters, orders, memos from employees and colleagues, invitations to events and the like. Often an organization chart of the company, a calendar or the like is also attached. The individual processes are then to be processed by the candidate within a given time, in which a decision has to be made for each of them, such as “do it immediately”, “postpone”, “take preliminary measures”, “obtain further information”, “to employees delegate ”,“ ignore ”etc. a. the importance and urgency of the matter (see Eisenhower method ), the availability of personnel and material resources, the collisions with other tasks contained in the mailbox and the like. At the end of the day, the decisions have to be presented to the evaluators or the applicant is evaluated according to the criteria previously defined in a requirements analysis .

Essential characteristics that are examined in the Postkorb case study are organizational skills, analytical skills, working under time pressure , the ability to set priorities, action orientation ( work organization ) and entrepreneurial thinking. Important work characteristics such as expertise, creativity, social and cognitive competence are not recorded by the test. It is mostly used to fill positions in lower management or for clerks.

IT mailboxes

In the last few years, a number of computer-aided programs have been developed for mailbox methods and these are increasingly being used in individual diagnostics. With these computer-based variants, a high level of standardization in implementation and evaluation is achieved. The so-called electronic mail basket can now have such a high degree of reality thanks to high-performance technology that the literature speaks of a PC-supported work sample rather than a normal test.

advantages

  • Evaluation of the results within seconds directly after the implementation (especially important from a test theoretical perspective; distortions of the test results due to assessment errors prevented; maximum evaluation objectivity , higher reliability and objectivity )
  • Dynamics can be implemented (e-mails can arrive time-controlled during the processing time or a sound file can simulate a call, for example)
  • Complex graphics , sortable tables , diagrams , but also video or audio messages can serve as additional input
  • The validity and acceptance of the exercise are significantly increased. Hartung and Schneider (1995) found in large-scale questionnaire studies that the level of difficulty of the content of IT tasks compared to the paper-pencil variants was found to be above average at 72%, but the exercises were also easy and safe to use for computer laymen were (91%).
  • increased economy (time savings, objective evaluation)
  • Adjustments to an existing mailbox to a new company or new requirements can be carried out more quickly using digital means
  • Realistic : EDP presentation corresponds very much to today's work environment, which leads to increased visual validity and acceptance
  • Process variables can be recorded (e.g. the test person's approach seen over time)
  • automatic results reports can then be created immediately and B. be kept in the corporate design
  • no paperwork, better archiving options
  • Data can be calculated quickly in a larger context

disadvantage

  • Original solution strategies are difficult to take into account, unless an interview takes place afterwards, as answers are largely given and only have to be selected by the participant or free text can be entered, which is difficult to evaluate
  • Purchase of laptops or PCs necessary (depending on how many participants are to be tested in parallel)
  • there are hardly any validation studies on mailboxes (Srbeny, 2008 is an exception), which makes their prognostic quality appear rather questionable

literature

  • MT Brannick, CE Michaels, DP Baker: Construct validity of in-basket scores. In: Journal of Applied Psychology. Volume 74, 1989, pp. 957-963.
  • JM Dukerich, FJ Milliken, DA Cowan: In-basket exercises as a methodology for studying information-processing. In: Simulation, Gaming. Volume 21, 1990, pp. 397-410.
  • N. Frederiksen: Validation of a simulation technique. In: Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Volume 1, 1966, pp. 87-109.
  • RWT Gill: The in-tray (in-basket) exercise as a measure of management potential. In: Journal of Occupational Psychology. Volume 52, 1979, pp. 185-197.
  • J. Funke : Computer-based testing and training with scenarios from complex problem-solving research: Advantages and disadvantages. In: International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Volume 6, 1998, pp. 90-96.
  • S. Hartung, I. Schneider: Development and application of computer-simulated scenarios. In: B. Strauss, M. Kleinmann (Ed.): Computer-simulated scenarios in personnel work. Hogrefe, Göttingen 1995, pp. 219-236.
  • R. Horn: Mailbox: A computerized in-basket task for use in personnel selection. In: European Review of Applied Psychology. Volume 41, 1991, pp. 325-327.
  • O. Kliem: The mail basket exercise as a test and training instrument. In: Personal. Volume 5, 1983, pp. 193-196.
  • HH Meyer: The validity of the in-basket test as a measure of managerial performance. In: Personnel Psychology. Volume 23, 1970, pp. 297-307.
  • J. Musch, W. Lieberei: An evaluation-objective mailbox exercise for assessment centers . In: Reports from the Psychological Institute of the University of Bonn. Volume 23, 1997, pp. 1-23. ( PDF; 0.2 MB )
  • J. Musch, B. Rahn, W. Lieberei: Bonner Post basket modules (BPM): The post baskets CaterTrans, Chronos, Minos and Aerowings. Hogrefe, Göttingen 2001.
  • J. Musch, B. Rahn, W. Lieberei: Bonner Postkorb-Module (BPM). In: W. Sarges, H. Wottawa (Hrsg.): Handbuch Wirtschaftsspsychologischer Testverfahren. Volume 1: Personal psychological instruments. 2nd Edition. Pabst, Lengerich 2005, pp. 191-195.
  • C. Obermann: Assessment Center. Development, implementation, trends. Gabler, Wiesbaden 2006.
  • M. Riediger, H. Rolfs: Instruments of work and organizational psychology. Computer-assisted post box processes: Mailbox'90, PC-Office and PC-Post box "Seeblick". In: Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Volume 42, 1998, pp. 43-50.
  • F. Roest, R. Horn: Mailbox-90: Computer-aided diagnostics in the assessment center. In: Diagnostica. Volume 36, 1990, pp. 213-219.
  • JP Rolland: Construct validity of in-basket dimensions. In: European Review of Applied Psychology-Revue Europeenne De Psychologie Appliquee. Volume 49, 1999, pp. 251-259.
  • J. Schippmann, E. Prien, J. Katz: Reliability and validity of in-basket performance measures. In: Personnel Psychology. Volume 43, 1990, pp. 837-859.
  • C. Srbeny: The computerized mail basket KI.BOX - a validation study . Cologne 2008. ( PDF; 4.2 MB )

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Srbeny, 2008.  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.ki-bit.com