OOIR: Observatory of International Research

Papers

(The TQCC of International Journal of Selection and Assessment is 5. The table below lists those papers that are above that threshold based on CrossRef citation counts [max. 250 papers]. The publications cover those that have been published in the past four years, i.e., from 2020-05-01 to 2024-05-01.)

Article	Citations
Justice perceptions of artificial intelligence in selection	70
Game‐based, gamified, and gamefully designed assessments for employee selection: Definitions, distinctions, design, and validation	28
Abusive supervision, emotion regulation, and performance	26
The procedural and interpersonal justice of automated application and resume screening	23
Job seekers' attitudes toward cybervetting: Scale development, validation, and platform comparison	19
Faking by actual applicants on personality tests: A meta‐analysis of within‐subjects studies	18
Spare me the details: How the type of information about automated interviews influences applicant reactions	18
Fair play? Sex‐, age‐, and job‐related correlates of performance in a computer‐based simulation game	17
Assessment of cognitive flexibility in personnel selection: Validity and acceptance of a gamified version of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test	17
Expanding conceptual understanding of interview anxiety and performance: Integrating cognitive, behavioral, and physiological features	16
Cognitive ability in virtual reality: Validity evidence for VR game‐based assessments	16
Is a cover letter still needed? Using LIWC to predict application success	14
A good thing takes time: The role of preparation time in asynchronous video interviews	14
Analyzing discrimination in recruitment: A guide and best practices for resume studies	14
Gamifying a personality measure by converting it into a story: Convergence, incremental prediction, faking, and reactions	13
The use of technology‐mediated interviews and their perception from the organization's point of view	13
Using machine learning to model trace behavioral data from a game‐based assessment	12
How asynchronous video interviews are used in practice: A study of an Australian‐based AVI vendor	12
Individual differences at play: An investigation into measuring Big Five personality facets with game‐based assessments	12
Virtual reality assessments (VRAs): Exploring the reliability and validity of evaluations in VR	12
The role of fear of negative evaluation in interview anxiety and social‐evaluative workplace anxiety	11
Willingness to fake: Examining the impact of competitive climate and hiring situations	10
Can explanations improve applicant reactions towards gamified assessment methods?	10
A theoretical model of cross‐cultural impression management in employment interviews	9
Illustrating a narrative: A test of game elements in game‐like personality assessment	9

Feedback environment: A meta‐analysis	9
The Decent Work Questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the Italian version	9
Better explaining the benefits why AI? Analyzing the impact of explaining the benefits of AI‐supported selection on applicant responses	8
Bright sides of dark personality? A cross‐cultural study on the dark triad and work outcomes	8
How much feedback do employees need? A field study of absolute feedback frequency reports and performance	8
The relationship between cognitive ability and personality scores in selection situations: A meta‐analysis	8
Should research experience be used for selection into graduate school: A discussion and meta‐analytic synthesis of the available evidence	8
A meta‐analysis of change in applicants' perceptions of fairness	7
Older workers and poor performance: Examining the association of age stereotypes with expected work performance quality	7
Prepared to fake? The relationship between applicants’ job interview preparation and faking	7
How do applicants fake? A response process model of faking on multidimensional forced‐choice personality assessments	7
Thou Shalt not Lie! Exploring and testing countermeasures against faking intentions and faking in selection interviews	7
Preselection in the digital age: A comparison of perceptions of asynchronous video interviews with online tests and online application documents in a simulation context	7
Organizational trust among job seekers: The role of information‐seeking and reciprocation wariness	7
Is it enough to be willing to win or do you have to be smart? The relationship between competitive worldviews, cognitive abilities, and applicant faking in personality tests	7
A review of online reactions to game‐based assessment mobile applications	6
Introducing a supervised alternative to forced‐choice personality scoring: A test of validity and resistance to faking	6
Ethical leadership, perceived cultural inclusion, and job behaviors: A two‐sample study of mediation and moderation effects	6
Individual differences in effective interview design: Factors affecting question choice	6
LinkedIn‐based assessments of applicant personality, cognitive ability, and likelihood of organizational citizenship behaviors: Comparing self‐, other‐, and language‐based automated ratings	6
Understanding, detecting, and deterring faking on interest inventories	5
Nonlinearity in the relationship between impression management tactics and interview performance	5
Stop and start control at work: Differential validity of two types of self‐control for work behavior and emotion regulation	5
Using game‐like animations of geometric shapes to simulate social interactions: An evaluation of group score differences	5
A Latent State‐Trait analysis of global self‐esteem: A reconsideration of its state‐like component in an organizational setting	5
Trust in hybrid human‐automated decision‐support	5
Structuring social media assessments in employee selection	5
Virtual simulation: New method for assessing teamwork skills	5
Backlash for high self‐promotion at hiring depends on candidates' gender and age	5
Once the best student always the best student? Predicting graduate study success using undergraduate academic indicators: Evidence from research masters’ programs in the Netherlands	5
Can we playfully measure cognitive ability? Construct‐related validity and applicant reactions	5