LAUSR

Abstract: Conceived as an in vitro experiment, this study explores four ways of designing employee assessment reports to determine which of them is more efficient in selection decisions. Based on feedback, information design, and the educational testing literature, we addressed the design of assessment reports from two different perspectives: the wording (score vs. trait descriptions) and the formatting (bulleted lists vs. paragraphs) of the text. A total of 247 human resources specialists received a job description and two personality profiles and were asked to decide which of the two fictitious candidates is more suitable for the job. The study was a 2 × 2 × 2 design, manipulating the difficulty of the decision, the text wording, and the text formatting. The model was statistically significant, χ2(7) = 29.9, p < .001, and explained 16.1% of the variance in the selection decision. In the easy scenario, all types of reports were efficient. In the difficult scenario, reports using score descriptions and paragraphs were more efficient than any of the other three conditions. This study primarily contributes from a practical point of view, showing that different ways of building assessment reports lead to different selection decisions. It also emphasizes the responsibility that organizations and assessment providers have when communicating assessment results to decision-makers.