ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE THEORY in VS .NET

Generation QR Code in VS .NET ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE THEORY
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE THEORY
QR Code JIS X 0510 Scanner In .NET
Using Barcode Control SDK for .NET framework Control to generate, create, read, scan barcode image in .NET framework applications.
Organizational justice theory has advanced rapidly in the last two decades Organizational justice theory assumes that there are at least two major determinants of fairness: procedural fairness and distributive fairness The former refers to the procedures used in making decisions; in the present context, this would concern the fairness of the testing procedures Distributive fairness refers to the outcomes received and whether one considers the outcomes (eg the test scores) received to be fair A judgment as to whether the outcomes received were fair is usually based on a comparison either with what one expected to receive or with what others have received (van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997) While procedural fairness and distributive fairness
Creating QR Code In .NET Framework
Using Barcode generation for VS .NET Control to generate, create QR Code ISO/IEC18004 image in .NET applications.
YYePG Proudly Presents, Thx For Support!
QR-Code Recognizer In VS .NET
Using Barcode scanner for Visual Studio .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in .NET framework applications.
COMPUTER-BASED TESTING AND THE INTERNET
Drawing Bar Code In VS .NET
Using Barcode maker for VS .NET Control to generate, create bar code image in .NET framework applications.
are frequently studied in tandem, I focus exclusively here on procedural fairness, as I believe it is in this regard that Internet-based testing involves some different considerations compared with traditional testing processes Thus, the fact that I do not discuss distributive justice here is not a re ection on its theoretical or practical importance; it is equally important that it be included in empirical investigations In one of the few empirical investigations that examined examinee reactions to an internet-based test, Sinar and Reynolds (unpublished paper) investigated a setting in which job applicants were tested in proctored, centralized environments (eg state-run employment centers) under the guidance of trained administrators (p 8) Among their other variables, Sinar and Reynolds examined test-takers answers to an open-ended question ( Do you have any additional comments about this assessment process ) Just over 10% of the sample responded to the administration process Of those, about 25% addressed the speed/ef ciency of the testing, with negative comments outweighing positive comments about two to one Twenty percent of the comments concerned the novelty of the testing process, of which nearly all were positive and none were negative (a few were neutral) General comments and userfriendliness comprised the next two categories, with the overwhelming number being positive Of perhaps greater interest was that 64% of the comments addressed testing environment (sample item: everyone was nice at the staf ng of ce) Of these comments, about four- fths were positive Finally, concerns about fairness/security were raised by 4% of the respondents, and of these the vast majority were positive Sinar and Reynolds (unpublished paper) categorized respondents into highly satis ed and dissatis ed groups (based on their comments) and examined the relationship with withdrawal from the job application process and rejecting/accepting a job offer None of these relationships was statistically signi cant As noted by the authors, however, the Internet-based testing system was carefully designed to ensure a highly effective process The highly positive nature of the reactions was therefore not surprising Speed/ef ciency was the only area that received a signi cant number of negative responses; testing environment received predominantly positive comments Fairness/ security was mentioned by few respondents and most of these comments were positive Clearly, fairness/security was not a major issue here On the other hand, recall that the authors used a proctored, centralized setting that included trained administrators Thus, this setting may represent the best of worlds for testing Also, this was a novelty for test-takers and they may not have considered all the possible implications In building on the study by Sinar and Reynolds, it is important to consider Gilliland (1993), who was the rst to develop a model of procedural fairness in the context of employment testing Gilliland hypothesized a number of relevant dimensions, including consistency, reconsideration opportunity, and feedback A list of these dimensions is provided in Table 61 Bauer et al (2001) created an empirical measure of these dimensions and concluded that a three-factor higher-order model social, structural, and job-relatedness
Bar Code Recognizer In Visual Studio .NET
Using Barcode recognizer for Visual Studio .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in .NET applications.
YYePG Proudly Presents, Thx For Support!
QR Encoder In C#
Using Barcode maker for VS .NET Control to generate, create QR Code image in .NET framework applications.
INTERNET TESTING: THE EXAMINEE PERSPECTIVE Table 61 Procedural justice dimensions from Bauer et al (2001) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Job-relatedness of the test Chance to perform on the test Reconsideration of test results Consistency of administration Feedback on test results Information known about the test process Openness of communication about the test Treatment during the test Two-way communication regarding the test Propriety of the questions
QR Code JIS X 0510 Creator In .NET Framework
Using Barcode printer for ASP.NET Control to generate, create QR-Code image in ASP.NET applications.
content provided a reasonably parsimonious representation of these dimensions The social higher-order factor included such dimensions as consistency of the test administration, two-way communication, and treatment during the test process The structural higher-order factor covered such dimensions as reconsideration opportunity and feedback (job-relatedness content was de ned by a single dimension) Even when actual test outcome and demographic variables were included as predictors, Bauer et al (2001) found that the procedural justice factors explained additional variance in their criteria Particularly noteworthy is that, of the three higher-order factors, the social higher-order factor was generally more important than the other two higherorder factors (structural and job-relatedness content) Clearly, then, procedural justice is likely to affect test-takers, and the social dimension appears to be one of the most important Lievens and Harris (2003) described how Gilliland s framework might be helpful in understanding test-taker reactions in an Internet-based context as well In light of the social higher-order factor, they noted that having an internet-based test may change the meaning of this construct While speculative, they argued that lack of a live test administrator may be seen as a positive factor (eg because a computer is more neutral) or may be seen as a negative factor, because there is no two-way communication (eg because a computer cannot talk; however, there may be an interactive component) I believe that in most cases, however, the lack of a live test administrator will be viewed as a shortcoming, rather than a positive factor My expectation is that a live administrator adds a personable, human touch that most people value (unless of course the live administrator is rude or unpleasant) A brief glance at some of the items in the scales of Bauer et al (2001) suggests just how important that human touch may be in the testing process Consider, for example, that their treatment scale contains items such as The testing staff put me at ease when I took the test Similarly, the openness dimension includes items such as Test administrators did not try to hide anything from me during the testing process Whether a live administrator can somehow be replaced by an effective Internet experience remains to be seen
Denso QR Bar Code Generation In Visual Basic .NET
Using Barcode generator for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create Quick Response Code image in .NET framework applications.
YYePG Proudly Presents, Thx For Support!
Generate Bar Code In .NET
Using Barcode maker for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create barcode image in .NET framework applications.
Print GS1-128 In .NET
Using Barcode printer for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create GS1-128 image in .NET applications.
Making OneCode In Visual Studio .NET
Using Barcode encoder for VS .NET Control to generate, create OneCode image in Visual Studio .NET applications.
Scanning UPCA In .NET Framework
Using Barcode decoder for Visual Studio .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in VS .NET applications.
Painting Code 128A In Java
Using Barcode maker for Java Control to generate, create Code128 image in Java applications.
Barcode Generation In Java
Using Barcode creator for Java Control to generate, create barcode image in Java applications.
ECC200 Reader In .NET
Using Barcode reader for VS .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in VS .NET applications.