An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the 23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology in Madrid, Spain, July, 1994. A substantial portion of this research was conducted while Miguel A. Quifiones was a Research Associate for the Air Force Office of Scientific Research Summer Faculty Research Program at the Human Resources Lab, Brooks AFB.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK EXPERIENCE AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A CONCEPTUAL AND META-ANALYTIC REVIEW
Article first published online: 7 DEC 2006
Volume 48, Issue 4, pages 887–910, December 1995
How to Cite
QUIŃONES, M. A., FORD, J. K. and TEACHOUT, M. S. (1995), THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK EXPERIENCE AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A CONCEPTUAL AND META-ANALYTIC REVIEW. Personnel Psychology, 48: 887–910. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01785.x
We would like to thank Doug Sego, Michael J. Burke, and Michael A. McDaniel for their comments and assistance. We also thank the members of the Behavioral Science Research Group for their comments on this research.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Air Force.
- Issue published online: 7 DEC 2006
- Article first published online: 7 DEC 2006
A gap in the conceptual development of the work experience construct was addressed by creating a framework specifying two dimensions along which work experience measures can vary. The dimensions of measurement mode (amount, time, and type) and level of specificity (task, job, organizational) formed nine separate categories of measures of work experience. The usefulness of the conceptual framework was tested by conducting a meta-analytic review of the existing literature on work experience using the dimensions in the framework as potential moderators of the experience-performance relationship. Results of the meta-analysis (N= 25,911; K= 44) revealed an estimated population correlation of 27 between experience and performance after correcting for sampling error and criterion unreliability. In addition, the results showed that amount (Mp̂= .43) and task-level (Mp̂= .41) measures of work experience had the highest correlations with measures of job performance. In addition, work experience had the highest correlations with hard (e.g. work samples) as opposed to soft (e.g. ratings) measures of job performance (Mp̂= .39 vs. Mp̂= .24). Implications and directions for future research are discussed.