Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 13
Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection:
A review of current assessment methods
Catherine Lissette Caballero, Deakin University, and Arlene Walker, Deakin University
cathy.caballero@deakin.edu.au; arlene.walker@deakin.edu.au
Abstract
Graduate recruitment and selection differs from other contexts in that graduate applicants
generally lack job-related experience. Recent research has highlighted that employers are
placing increasing value on graduates being work ready. Work readiness is believed to be
indicative of graduate potential in terms of long term job performance and career
advancement. A review of the literature has found that current graduate recruitment and
selection practices lack the rigour and construct validity to effectively assess work readiness.
In addition, the variety of interchangeable terms and definitions articulated by employers and
academics on what constitutes work readiness suggests the need to further refine this
construct. This paper argues that work readiness is an important selection criterion, and
should be examined systematically in the graduate assessment process, as a construct in
itself. The ineffectiveness of current assessment methods in being able to measure work
readiness supports the need to develop a specific measure of work readiness that will allow
more effective decision practices and potentially predict long term job capacity and
performance.
Keywords: Work readiness, graduate employability, graduate recruitment, graduate selection,
graduate assessment, transferable skills, graduate competencies.
Introduction
In recent years a number of economic, technological and demographic trends have
significantly impacted the workplace and highlighted the importance of effective recruitment
and selection practices. Researchers have predicted that the convergence of globalisation
and an ageing population will result in vast labour shortages, as organisations compete on a
world stage for high-aptitude, adaptable and multi-skilled employees (Meyer, Allen &
Topolnytsky, 1998; Trank, Rynes & Bretz Jr., 2002). With the expected shortage of qualified
and experienced senior employees in the years to come, young university graduates are a
precious future commodity. Whilst the term “graduates” is generally used to refer to former
students who have received an undergraduate or postgraduate university degree, this paper
refers only to new graduates who have completed an undergraduate degree and are
entering professional employment for the first time. A number of factors differentiate
graduate recruitment and selection from other contexts, the most important being that
graduates generally lack job related experience. Recent studies have identified work
readiness as an area of increasing relevance to graduate recruitment, and a construct which
is becoming increasingly valued by employers today. Given the rapidly changing nature of
the workplace, the extent to which graduates are “work ready” is seen as indicative of their
potential in terms of job performance and career advancement.
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 14
The growing demand organisations are placing on graduates possessing the attributes that
render them work ready, has significant implications for graduate recruitment and selection
practices. In addition, while the impact of the recent Global Financial Crisis on graduate
recruitment and selection is not yet clear, it is possible that securing employment has
become more difficult for graduates. As such, it may be even more important that graduates
posses the necessary work readiness skills and attributes sought by employers. There is
relatively little systematic research regarding assessment methods used in graduate
recruitment, and therefore it is unclear how effective current assessment methods are in
assessing work readiness. This paper examines current graduate recruitment and selection
practices and highlights the importance of work readiness for graduate contexts.
Furthermore, the extent to which current assessment methods used in graduate recruitment
and selection effectively measure work readiness is explored.
Assessment in graduate recruitment and selection
For some time, university graduates have been a key source of new recruits for
organisations. Particularly in large organisations, hiring graduates has become an annual
cycle and a core component of HR strategy (Slaughter, Stanton, Mohr & Schoel, 2005).
From an organisational perspective there are many advantages to hiring graduate
employees. It is generally recognised that the best way to build organisational effectiveness
is to hire employees with high levels of ability and past achievement. Based on these
measures, graduates represent a valuable and plentiful resource of quantifiable ability and
achievement (O'Leary, Lindholm, Whitford & Freeman, 2002). Hiring graduates also
enables organisations to meet the need for trained and educated individuals in areas that
require professional and highly skilled employees. Graduates are often valued for their new
ideas and fresh thinking. They are also a potential source of future leadership. While
graduates may lack direct job related experience, many students undertake part time or
casual employment throughout their university studies. As such, it would be expected that
these employment experiences, even if not directly related to their profession, are likely to
contribute to graduates‟ understanding of how organisations function. Furthermore
organisations have the opportunity to train graduates according to their methods (ACNielsen
Research Services, 2000). In comparison to experienced applicants, today‟s graduates
generally have greater technological abilities, enthusiasm for learning and a comprehensive
educational experience (Bottjen, 2001; Hoopis, 1994). In addition, the increase in the
number of entry-level positions over the years means that hiring graduates, as opposed to
experienced employees, is a cost effective method of filling these positions (Bottjen, 2001).
Entry-level positions for graduates include professional, managerial and technical jobs and
estimates indicate that as many as 40% of new recruits in organisations are graduates
(Rynes, Orlitzky & Bretz Jr, 1997). As such, selection decisions regarding which graduates
to employ are crucial because of the potential costs that can result from making the wrong
selection decisions (Nicholson & Arnold, 1991).
Difficulties associated with graduate recruitment and selection
A number of key factors render the graduate assessment process particularly difficult and
set it apart from selection assessments conducted in other contexts. At the recruitment end
of the process, the sheer volume of applications highlights the need to develop systematic
methods of heavily screening and processing applications (Carless, 2007). Carless noted
that in 2003, the Australian Association of Graduate Employers (AAGE) cited an average of
2023 applications per graduate position with an average of 39 short listed applicants for
every job.
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 15
Graduates are often selected for their perceived general potential, rather than for a specific
role within the company. This unique assessment approach challenges traditional
assessment methodology and also complicates the job analysis process which is based on
the analysis of a specific job (Keenan, 1995). Traditionally, job analysis is the cornerstone
on which assessment is built and dictates selection criteria. Instead of specific job
performance criteria it is common for assessments used in entry-level selection to focus on
broad abilities such as general cognitive ability (Murphy, 2004). However, this practice
raises concerns regarding the validity of assessment methods chosen, particularly where
techniques are not adapted for use in a graduate context.
The most obvious and significant factor differentiating graduate selection from other forms of
employment selection, is that most graduates have little, if any, direct job-related experience
(Keenan, 1995). This is a major distinction which deserves careful consideration given that
many selection methods, such as interviews, traditionally assess knowledge, skills and
attributes (KSAs) and competencies in relation to previous work experience (Keenan, 1995).
Furthermore, assessment in recruitment contexts tends to include oral assessment, such as
interviews. This may present a challenge for graduates, particularly given that there is
considerably more focus on written forms of assessment in higher education settings. As
such, graduates may not be as prepared to articulate their knowledge, skills and experience
to potential employers.
Despite growing interest in the area of graduate recruitment and selection, relatively little is
known about the methods used by organisations to assess and select graduates for entry
level positions. The fact that graduates lack relevant work experience and that selection
criteria are typically not based on a given job analysis raises questions in relation to: the
selection criteria being used; how assessment methods are modified to account for
graduates‟ lack of work experience; and whether current methods effectively predict
graduate performance. A review of current graduate recruitment, selection and assessment
practices follows with a particular focus on the emerging area of graduate work readiness.
Graduate selection criteria
Knowledge, skills and attributes (KSAs)
A qualitative study by ACNielsen Research Services (2000) with employers and industry
representatives identified the following sought after skills in new graduate recruits: academic
achievement, literacy; numeracy; logical and orderly thinking; computer skills; time
management skills; written business communication; oral communication; creativity and flair;
interpersonal skills; teamwork skills; problem solving skills; and comprehension of business
processes. Some employers also rated research/analysis skills and leadership skills as
being important. With regard to the future of business and the rapid changes impacting the
world of work, employers indicated a preference for graduates who were adaptable and
flexible in order to cope with future changes. Graduates with an awareness of the need for
continuous learning were also valued by some professions. It seems that a range of
personal attributes are valued by Australian employers that vary according to the
organisation, industry and profession. In general, Australian employers consider enthusiasm,
motivation, ambition, maturity, and personal presentation to be valuable attributes in
graduate applicants.
Work readiness
Traditionally, academic achievement and/or technical competence has been a key selection
criterion in graduate recruitment and selection (Roth & Bobko, 2000). While this is usually
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 16
dependent on specific subjects for particular disciplines and professions, high academic or
technical achievement is generally used as an indicator of intellectual capability, capacity to
learn, and motivation to pursue and achieve goals (ACNielsen Research Services, 2000).
However, academic or technical ability does not necessarily predict long term future
capability. Nowadays, more importance is being placed on graduates possessing a range of
generic skills and attributes required across all jobs. In particular, organisations are
increasingly interested in the extent to which graduate applicants possess the skills and
attributes that make them “prepared” or “ready” for success in today‟s rapidly changing work
environment. Hence, a relatively new concept has emerged in the literature as a selection
criterion for predicting graduate potential, the notion of work readiness (ACNielsen Research
Services, 2000; Casner-Lotto, Barrington & Wright, 2006; Gardner & Liu, 1997; Hart, 2008).
Employer perspectives on graduate work readiness
Gardner and Liu (1997) surveyed over 150 employers who were asked to observe their new
graduate employees in order to compare and rate their work preparation with the job‟s
performance requirements. The participant sample included technical graduates (e.g.
engineering, computer science, accounting), as well as non-technical graduates (e.g.
general business, social sciences, communications). The objectives of the study were to
evaluate graduate performance with regards to the specific skills/competencies required for
the job and to evaluate the educational and social preparation of the graduates for work.
Fifty two skills and competencies, grouped into nine categories were rated including: (1)
speaking and listening, (2) reading, (3) writing, (4) mathematics, (5) thinking and reasoning,
(6) organisational skills, (7) analysing analytical data, (8) job skills, and (9) personal skills.
The study found that some employers perceived their graduate employees as inadequately
prepared for entry level work. Although employers were generally happy with graduate
performance, there were a few significant differences between job requirements and
graduate preparedness. Overall, technical graduates were rated as being more unprepared
in terms of speaking and listening, writing, organisational and personal skills than non-
technical graduates. For both technical and non technical graduates a lack of work
readiness was observed in relational and personal competencies, skills not directly taught in
the classroom (Gardner & Liu, 1997). Nowadays, however it is common for undergraduate
courses to offer practical units that allow students to experientially develop relational and
personal competencies outside of the classroom. Hence these findings may not be valid for
today‟s graduates.
Alternatively, research by Hart (2008) with 301 organisations found that while employers
were generally satisfied with graduates‟ entry-level skills, they were less confident about
graduates‟ achievement of the skills and knowledge necessary for advancement and
promotion in the organisation. Of 12 key skill areas, employers identified global knowledge,
self-direction, writing, critical thinking and adaptability as areas where graduates were least
prepared in terms of work and hence in need of improvement.
ACNielsen Research Services (2000) examined employer satisfaction with the skills of new
graduates entering the workforce. A participant sample of 1105 Australian employers rated
graduates from a range of disciplines from both the TAFE and University sectors on 25 skills
and attributes. Creativity and flair was rated by employers as the most valued attribute of
new graduates and also the attribute that new graduates were most deficient in. The other
most valued skills or attributes were enthusiasm, capacity for independent and critical
thinking, flexibility and adaptability and personal presentation. Graduates were also
generally rated as lacking problem solving skills, oral business communication skills, and
interpersonal skills. Furthermore, when rating the suitability of applicants for each position in
the organisation, employers indicated that 76.5% of applicants were found to be unsuitable.
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 17
Similarly, Casner-Lotto, et al., (2006) surveyed 400 US organisations regarding graduates‟
preparedness, and articulated 11 applied skill sets that new graduate entrants need to
succeed in the workplace. Employers rated professionalism/work ethic, oral and written
communications, teamwork/collaboration and critical thinking/problem solving as the most
important skills for new graduates on entering the work place. With regards to overall
preparation or work readiness of graduates, 24% of employers rated university graduates as
“excellent”, 65% rated them as “adequate”, and 9% rated graduates as “deficient”. In
addition, graduates were rated as being least prepared in terms of written communication
skills and leadership skills.
Current conceptualisations of graduate work readiness
The current graduate recruitment literature does not provide a clear conceptualisation of
what defines work readiness in graduate employees (Casner-Lotto, et al., 2006).
Furthermore, findings from the studies by ACNielsen Research Services (2000), Casner-
Lotto, et al., (2006), Gardner & Liu (1997) and Hart (2008) vary in terms of the skills and
attributes articulated by employers as being indicative of work readiness. It appears that
employers may not value the same skills and attributes equally and that, in some cases,
employers use different terms to refer to the same or similar attributes.
The evident lack of clarity and consensus on what defines work readiness may be due to the
fact that, as a construct, it is still in the early stages of development. The emergence of
interest in work readiness can be linked to the increasing demand from employers for
graduates to possess a diverse range of generic graduate attributes or generic skills (Hager
& Holland, 2006). This trend has resulted from economic and technological developments
which have significantly changed the nature of the workplace. The term generic skills is
used interchangeably with related terms including “core skills”, “basic skills”, “transferable
skills” and “employability skills”. It refers to a range of qualities and capacities that are
viewed as important in the preparation for work in almost any job. Examples of generic skills
include communication, problem solving and working with others. Alternatively, Hager and
Holland argue that generic graduate attributes go beyond technical skills to also include
attitudes, values and dispositions. The various combinations of attributes and skills that a
graduate applies in different contexts can be referred to as capabilities (Hager, 2006).
Consistent with the interchangeable terms used to describe generic skills and attributes,
different labels are also used in the literature to describe the notion of work readiness
including “work preparedness”, “graduate employability”, “transferable skills” and “generic
attributes”. A review of the literature indicates that these concepts are closely tied along with
overlaps in the skills and attributes that denote graduate work readiness (Atlay & Harris,
2000; Casner-Lotto, et al., 2006; Gabb, 1997; Gardner & Liu, 1997; Hambur, Rowe & Luc,
2002; Hart, 2008; Stewart & Knowles, 2000). Table 1 provides a summary of the studies
which examine work readiness and its various cognates, as well as a breakdown of the skills
and attributes identified as being important for graduate success.
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 18
Table 1. Summary of the Literature Examining Work Readiness and Related Concepts
Reference Construct terminology Breakdown of skills/attributes
(Gardner & Liu, 1997) Workforce readiness Skills and Competencies:
Speaking and listening, Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Thinking and Reasoning, Organisational,
Analysing data, Job Skills, Personal Skills
(Casner-Lotto, Barrington & Wright
2006)
Workforce readiness Applied Skills
Critical thinking/problem solving, Oral communications, written communication,
teamwork/collaboration, diversity, information technology application, leadership,
creativity/innovation, lifelong learning/self-direction, Professionalism/Work ethic, Ethics/Social
responsibility
(Hart, 2008) Work preparedness
Teamwork, Ethical judgement, Intercultural skills, Social responsibility, Quantitative reasoning,
Oral communication, Self-knowledge,, Adaptability, Critical thinking, Writing, Self-direction,
Global knowledge
(Hambur, Rowe & Luc, 2002;
Stewart & Knowles, 1999)
Graduate transferable skills &
qualities (“Graduateness”)
Personal Attributes
Motivation, Organisational ability, Teamwork, Interpersonal/social skills, Leadership
Communication
Written, Verbal and non verbal skills
Problem-Solving
Initiative, Creativity, Decision Making
(Gabb, 1997) Graduate transferable skills &
qualities
Motivation, Enthusiasm, Interpersonal skills, Teamworking, Flexibility, Adaptability, Oral
communication, Initiative, Proactivity, Problem-solving
(Stewart & Knowles, 2000) Graduate transferable skills &
qualities
Motivation, Initiative, Creativity, Organisational Ability, Communication Skills –Verbal,
Communication Skills – Written, Teamworking, Interpersonal/Social, Problem Solving,
Leadership, Numeracy, Information Technology
(Atlay & Harris, 2000) Graduate employability Information retrieval and handling, communication and presentation, planning and problem
solving, social development and interaction
(Knight & Yorke, 2003) Aspects of Employability Personal Qualities
Malleable self-theory, self-awareness, self-confidence, independence, emotional intelligence,
adaptability, stress tolerance, initiative, willingness to learn, reflectiveness.
Core Skills
Reading effectiveness, numeracy, information retrieval, language skills, self-management,
critical analysis, creativity, listening, written communication, oral presentations, explaining, global
awareness
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 19
Communication, motivation, initiative, creativity and interpersonal skills are the attributes that
appear most frequently across the studies shown in Table 1. The findings of these studies in
particular highlight the fact that work readiness is a construct which is becoming increasingly
valued by employers today. Given the rapidly changing nature of the workplace, the extent
to which graduate employees are work ready is seen as indicative of graduate potential in
terms of long term job performance and career advancement. The growing demand
organisations are placing on graduates possessing the generic attributes that render them
work ready, has significant implications for graduate recruitment, particularly with regards to
selection. As such, a review of the assessment methods currently being used by
organisations in graduate recruitment and selection and the efficacy of these methods for
work readiness is necessary.
Review of research in graduate assessment methods
In comparison to studies investigating the methods used in the recruitment and selection of
managers, there are fewer studies which have examined assessment methods used in
graduate selection. Nevertheless, recent research surveying graduate recruitment and
selection practices across organisations in British (e.g. Keenan, 1995), European (e.g.
Hodgkinson & Payne, 1998) and Australian (e.g. Carless, 2007) contexts provide us with
some insight into current practices.
Pre-screening methods
An important first step in the selection phase appears to be the pre-screening and culling of
applicants to a manageable number (Carless, 2007). If conducted poorly, pre-screening can
negatively impact on the selection process and render it ineffective (Keenan, 1995).
According to Keenan, application forms provide a cost effective and time efficient method of
screening applicants in this initial phase. Some organisations may also use pre-screening
interviews. Application forms traditionally include the applicant‟s academic results, to which
some employers assign a great deal of weight in terms of screening out unsuitable
applicants (ACNielsen Research Services, 2000).
A UK study by Keenan (1995) examining the graduate recruitment and selection methods of
536 organisations reported that 94% of respondents used application forms and 54%
screening interviews as a basis for pre-screening the applicants. Hodgkinson and Payne
(1998) conducted a cross cultural comparison of the assessment methods used to select
university graduates in three European countries. Senior managers and human resource
professionals from 176 British, 57 Dutch, and 37 French organisations were surveyed about
their most common selection methods. In the pre-screening phase, 83% of British, 66% of
Dutch and 55% of French organisations reported using application forms. A decade later
Carless (2007), in a survey of 50 Australian organisations, found that most organisations
used application forms as the first step in the selection process of graduate employees.
Methods used in final selection
Following the pre-screening of graduate applicants, a final selection phase is undertaken
where it appears that organisations draw on a range of assessment methods. For example,
Keenan (1995) found that all UK organisations surveyed used interviews in their final
selection of graduates and 44% also used assessment centres. Hodgkinson and Payne‟s
(1998) cross cultural study found that organisations from Britain, France and the Netherlands
used a variety of traditional methods such as, interviews, ability tests and personality tests.
However, it was also found that some organisations used extremely poor methods such as
references and graphology as part of the selection process. The later study by Carless
(2007) in an Australian context yielded similar results to those reported by Keenan (1995)
and Hodgkinson and Payne (1998). One-on-one or panel interviews, cognitive ability tests,
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 20
personality tests and assessment centres were reported as the most common methods used
in graduate recruitment and selection by Australian organisations.
A limitation common to the studies by Carless (2007), Hodgkinson and Payne (1998) and
Keenan (1995) is that data were not collected regarding the selection criteria used by the
organisations in conducting their graduate assessments or how the selection criteria was
determined. This is further compounded by the problematic nature of the notion of “skills”,
which are commonly used as selection criteria in graduate selection. Historically the term
“skills” referred to the capabilities required to undertake a particular task (Taylor, 2005).
Nowadays however this term is often collapsed and used interchangeably with the term
„competency‟ and „attribute‟. Furthermore use of the term “skills” has expanded to include a
range of “soft”, “generic”, “transferable”, “social”, and “interpersonal” skills. As a result,
conceptually the notion of skills has become poorly defined with organisations offering
different interpretations (Payne, 2000). As such, the nature of the specific graduate skills
and attributes being assessed in these studies is unclear, as is the effectiveness of the
methods used in assessing these skills and attributes.
To date, much of the research examining graduate assessment methods has been
conducted by surveying organisations. Although this research has contributed to knowledge
of the selection practices being used by organisations, they do not examine the validity of
assessment methods used in a graduate context in terms of predicting graduate potential
and performance. Furthermore, there is little insight about the extent to which organisations
utilise work readiness, or attributes that are indicative of work readiness, as predictors of
performance in current selection practices.
Effectiveness of current methods in assessing graduate work readiness.
The findings by Carless (2007) in particular, provide some useful insight into the practices of
Australian organisations. The most common methods used by the 50 Australian
organisations surveyed, in order of popularity were, application forms, interviews, cognitive
ability tests, personality tests and assessment centres. These selection methods are each
designed to predict different dimensions of performance criteria, however, not all methods
are employed in the same selection process. According to Carless, while more than half of
the Australian organisations utilised a selection battery comprising three methods:
application forms, interviews and one other selection method of choice, 42% indicated they
only used application forms and interviews to select graduate applicants. Although these
methods have been shown to demonstrate validity across occupational groups and in
various contexts, it is less clear how effective they are in assessing potential in graduate
applicants. In particular the fact that some organisations only rely on the use of application
forms and interviews raises concerns about the ability of current assessment methods in
being able to examine graduate work readiness as a construct in itself.
Application forms and academic achievement
Despite the widespread use of university grades in selection practices, in comparison to
other job predictors, there is little known about the reliability, validity and implications of this
method (Roth & Bobko, 2000). The academic achievement literature generally suggests a
positive relationship between university grades and general mental ability (Jensen, 1980).
Roth, BeVier, Switzer, and Schipmann (1996) in their meta-analysis examined the
relationship between academic grades and job performance. Correlation coefficients were
found to be only modest, suggesting academic grades were weak predictors of job
performance. Furthermore correlation coefficients for academic grades were found to be
lower than other predictors such as interviews and cognitive ability tests.
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 21
Of particular interest is the usefulness of academic grades in measuring the work readiness
of graduate applicants. While there is limited research on this topic, Hart (2008) reported
that less than 30% of employers found academic achievement to be effective in predicting a
graduate applicant‟s work readiness and potential to succeed. As such, it appears that
standard application forms and academic achievement scores may be limited in their ability
to assess the multidimensional construct of work readiness.
Interviews
Several studies have supported the use of interviews as a valid selection tool, provided they
are highly structured (Gatewood, Feild, & Barrick, 2008; Salgado, 1999; Weisner &
Cronshaw, 1988; Wright, Lichenfels, & Pursell, 1989). Furthermore, the use of structured
interviews in selection has increased potential for assisting organisations in improving
employee performance and productivity (Terpstra & Rozell, 1993). However, two vital
conditions of the structured interview are that they are based on systematic job analysis and
utilise job-related questions (Keenan, 1995). In the case of graduate recruitment and
selection, meeting these conditions is difficult, particularly where graduates are not applying
for specific roles and organisations are not utilising job analyses. In addition, graduates
generally do not have sufficient job experience to be able to answer job-related questions.
With respect to work readiness, the suitability of interviews may be doubtful. Interviews are
essentially designed to provide insight into an individual‟s future performance based on past
experience. However, for a cohort with limited job-related experience, the validity of this
selection method is questionable. It is also unclear from the research whether employers are
modifying the traditional interview to make them more appropriate for graduate applicants.
One way employers may modify the interview is to utilise future oriented questions, however,
according to Salgado (1999) past-oriented questions generally demonstrate higher validity
than future-orientated questions.
Cognitive ability tests
A review of the validity of cognitive ability tests by Ghiselli (1973) found that they were
valuable predictors of performance across many types of jobs and occupations. Twenty five
years later, a meta-analysis examining cognitive ability tests by Schmidt and Hunter (1998)
found similar results. Nevertheless, in relation to assessing work readiness, cognitive ability
tests suffer from the same limitations as academic achievement results, since they are
designed to measure cognitive ability, rather than work readiness.
Hart‟s (2008) survey of 301 employers examining employer perceptions of work readiness
found that few employers rated multiple-choice tests of cognitive ability effective in predicting
graduate performance on the job. Instead, most employers favoured assessments that
demonstrated graduate ability to apply learning to complex, real world challenges including
tests assessing problem-solving, writing and analytical skills. Hence, as predictors of work
readiness in the assessment process, neither academic results nor multiple choice tests of
cognitive ability were rated by employers as valuable.
Construct validity
Construct validity concerns the relationship of a measure to the underlying attributes it is
attempting to assess (McIntire & Miller, 2007). Of the current graduate selection methods,
only cognitive ability tests and personality tests are associated with specific constructs, yet
neither of these is synonymous with work readiness. Hence, current measures of
personality and cognitive ability would not be expected to be effective predictors of the
dimensions that define work readiness in graduates.
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 22
The need for systematic assessment of work readiness
The increased interest in examining graduate work readiness suggests that this is a
construct of value in entry-level jobs and indicative of graduate job performance, success,
and potential for promotion and advancement. It is also evident from the research
examining work readiness (ACNielsen Research Services, 2000; Casner-Lotto, et al., 2006;
Gardner & Liu, 1997; Hart, 2008), that some graduates entering the workforce lack the
preparedness and work readiness expected of them by employers. In other words, on the
job performance of some graduates has been found to fall below the requirements of their
entry-level roles and as such, have failed to meet employer expectations.
The primary aim of assessment in graduate recruitment and selection is to predict and
forecast a candidate‟s capability potential and future performance on the job. Nevertheless,
even after selecting the “best” graduates, employers perceive a lack of work readiness that
can hinder graduate success. This implies that current graduate selection practices do not
effectively assess this construct. The discrepancy between employer expectations and
graduate performance also suggests a growing need to systematically assess work
readiness in graduate recruitment and selection. Graduates are unique to other employment
groups in that they lack job-related experience, therefore work readiness may be an
important consideration in predicting the future potential of graduates.
Current assessment methods, although valid in predicting performance criteria, lack the
rigour and construct validity that would be required to effectively assess work readiness in
graduates. Furthermore, the variety of definitions articulated by employers and academics
on what constitutes work readiness is indicative of a need to further refine this construct.
The value of assessments in evaluating work readiness will hinge crucially on how well the
attributes that constitute work readiness are conceptualised (Hager, 2006).
To date there is little, if any evidence in the research of a specific measure of work readiness
for graduates. The only scale identified in the literature developed for a graduate population
and relevant in an Australian context is the Graduate Skills Assessment (GSA). The GSA,
developed by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) (Hambur et al., 2002),
is designed to assess widely applicable generic skills acquired through the university
experience and which may be relevant to university achievement and future graduate work.
The generic skills assessed by the GSA include; written communication, critical thinking,
problem solving, and interpersonal understandings. However, the GSA does not assess the
personal attributes and personality traits that may be associated with implementing these
generic skills. Instead, the GSA was developed to provide an indicator to universities of
generic skills in their students at entry /exit level. At exit-level GSA results may be also used
as an additional criterion for entry into post graduate courses.
It is evident that current graduate recruitment and selection methods fall short with respect to
the assessment of work readiness. Given the growing emphasis on this construct from
employers, the development of a scale to measure work readiness seems inevitable. Such
a measure would allow more effective selection decisions. It is also expected that such a
measure would be able to more effectively predict long term work capacity and performance.
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 23
References
ACNielsen Research Services (2000). Employer satisfaction with graduate skills: Research
report by Evaluations and Investigations Programme, Higher Education Division.
Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Atlay, M., & Harris, R. (2000). An institutional approach to developing students' 'transferable'
skills. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 76-84.
Bottjen, A. (2001). The benefits of college recruiting. Sales and Marketing Management,
153, 12.
Carless, S. A. (2007). Graduate recruitment and selection in Australia. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 15(2), 153-166.
Casner-Lotto, J., Barrington, L. & Wright, M. (2006). Are they really ready to work?
Employers' perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to
the 21st century U.S. workforce. (Research Report BED-06-Workforce). Washington
DC, USA: The Conference Board, Inc., the Partnership for 21st Century Skills,
Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resources
Management.
Gabb, A. (1997). University challenge. Management Today, (December 1997), 62-64.
Gardner, P. D., & Liu, W.-Y. (1997). Prepared to perform? Employers rate work force
readiness of new grads. Journal of Career Planning & Employment, 57(3), 32-56.
Gatewood, R. D., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M. (2008). Human resource selection (6th ed.).
Mason, Ohio: Thomson Higher Education.
Ghiselli, E. E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection. Personnel
Psychology, 26(4), 461-477. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1973.tb01150.x
Hager, P. (2006). Nature and development of generic attributes. In P. Hager & S. Holland
(Eds.), Graduate attributes, learning and employability. The Netherlands: Springer.
Hager, P., & Holland, S. (2006). Introduction. In P. Hager & S. Holland (Eds.), Graduate
attributes, learning and employability. The Netherlands: Springer.
Hambur, S., Rowe, K., & Luc, L. T. (2002). Graduate skills assessment: Stage one validity
study. Canberra, ACT: The Australian Council for Educational Research (Ed.),
Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training.
Hart, P. D. (2008). How should colleges assess and improve student learning? Employers'
views on the accountability challenge, A survey of employers conducted on behalf of:
The Association of American Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: Peter D.
Hart Research Associates, Inc.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Payne, R. L. (1998). Graduate selection in three European countries.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(4), 359-365.
Hoopis, H. P. (1994). The old college try: How to recruit outstanding college students.
Manager's magazine, 69, 16-23.
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.
Keenan, T. (1995). Graduate recruitment in Britain: A survey of selection methods used by
organizations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 16(4), 303-317.
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 24
Knight, P.T., & Yorke, M. (2003). Assessment, learning and employability. Berkshire:
McGraw-Hill Education
McIntire, S. A., & Miller, L. A. (2007). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical
approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Topolnytsky, L. (1998). Commitment in a changing world of work.
Canadian Psychology, 39(1-2), 83-93. doi:10.1016/S0708-5591(02)00190-5
Murphy, K. R. (2004). Assessment in work settings. In M. Hersen (Ed.), Comprehensive
handbook of psychological assessment (Vol. 3). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Nicholson, N., & Arnold, J. (1991). From expectation to experience: Graduates entering a
large corporation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 12(5), 413-429.
doi: 10.1002/job.4030120506
O'Leary, B. S., Lindholm, M. L., Whitford, R. A., & Freeman, S. E. (2002). Selecting the best
and brightest: Leveraging human capital. Human Resource Management, 41(3), 325-
340.
Payne, J. (2000). The unbearable lightness of skill: The changing meaning of skill in UK
policy discourses and some implications for education and training. Journal of
Education Policy, 15(3), 353-369.
Roth, P. L., BeVier, C. A., Switzer, F. S., & Schipmann, J. S. (1996). Meta-analyzing the
relationship between grades and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(5), 548-556.
Roth, P. L., & Bobko, P. (2000). College grade point average as a personnel selection
device: Ethnic group differences and potential adverse impact. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(3), 399-406.
Rynes, S. L., Orlitzky, M. O., & Bretz Jr, R. D. (1997). Experienced hiring versus college
recruiting: Practices and emerging trends. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 309-339.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00910.x
Salgado, J. F. (1999). Personnel selection methods. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.),
International Review of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Vol 14, 1999. New
York: Wiley.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research
findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
Slaughter, J. E., Stanton, J. M., Mohr, D. C., & Schoel, W.A. (2005). The interaction of
attraction and selection: Implications for college recruitment and Schneider's ASA
model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(4), 419-441.
Stewart, J., & Knowles, V. (1999). The changing nature of graduate careers. Career
Development International, 4(7), 370-383.
Stewart, J., & Knowles, V. (2000). Graduate recruitment and selection practices in small
businesses. Career Development International, 5(1), 21-38.
doi: 10.1108/13620430010309332
Taylor, A. (2005). What employers look for: The skills debate and the fit with youth
perceptions. Journal of Education and Work, 18(2), 201-218.
Terpstra, D. E., & Rozell, E. J. (1993). The relationship of staffing practices to organizational
level measures of performance. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 27-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0708-5591(02)00190-5
Caballero, C., & Walker, A. (2010). Work readiness in graduate recruitment and selection: A review of current assessment
methods. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 1(1), 13 – 25. 25
Trank, C.Q., Rynes, S.L. & Bretz Jr., R.D. (2002). Attracting applicants in the war for talent:
Differences in work preferences among high achievers. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 16 (3), 331 – 345.
Weisner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of
interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61(1988), 275-290.
Wright, P. M., Lichenfels, P. A., & Pursell, E. D. (1989). The structured interview: Additional
studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(3), 191-199.