Program

Professor Martin Kleinmann, University of Zürich, Switzerland

A different look at why selection procedures work: The role of candidates' ability to identify criteria

Personnel selection procedures such as assessment centers, structured interviews, and personality inventories are useful predictors of candidates’ job performance. In addition to existing explanations for their criterion-related validity, we suggest that candidates’ ability to identify the criteria used to evaluate their performance during a selection procedure contributes to the criterion-related validity of these procedures. Conceptually, the ability to identify criteria can be framed in the broader literature on peoples’ ability to read situational cues. We draw on both theory and empirical research to outline the potential this ability has to account for selection results and job performance outcomes. Finally, implications for practice and future research are presented.

Dr. Martin Kleinmann is a professor at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. He is the leader of the Work and Organizational Psychology group and the head of the Department of Psychology. After his Ph.D. he received a full professorship at the University of Marburg, Germany. He has received several grants from the German Research Foundation and the Swiss National Science Foundation, has worked as a consultant for several years in the field of personnel psychology, has been the president of the German Society of Industry and Organizational Psychology and has been the editor of the leading German journal of personnel psychology. His books are published in German and one of them has been translated into Russian. Dr. Kleinmann’s articles have been published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology and several other prominent journals. In 2014 he received a SIOP fellowship as a result of his scientific work in the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. His main research interests include construct-related validity of personnel selection, performance ratings in different contexts, impression management, and time management.

Professor Valentin Bucik, Univerza v Ljubljani, Slovenija

Giftedness and creativity: Myth and Truth

Many European countries, especially the smaller ones with limited natural resources, claim that human resources are the most important national treasure and – wishing to become a society of knowledge – they promote giftedness and creativity as one of the main strategic goals in the short-term and long-term development and prosperity of the country. Paradoxically there are many countries which are not willing to spend additional substantial funds for the development programs for gifted, talented and creative individuals. In addition, the concepts of giftedness and creativity are far for clear – not only for the majority of discussants outside the frame of psychology. Several persistent stereotypes, misconceptions and myths can also be found in the field of psychological expertise. There is a number of “popular” myths, such as the opinions that creative ability is a trait inherent in one’s heritage or genes, that lefties are more creative, that children are more creative than adults, that everyone is creative, and that time pressure fuels creativity. However, a number of more serious myths also exist: that gifted education programs are elitist, that differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient, that teachers challenge all the students, so gifted kids will be fine in the regular classroom, that gifted students make everyone else in the class smarter by providing a role model or a challenge, that the gifted and talented constitute one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Moreover, some think that giftedness equals a high IQ, which is supposedly a stable measure of aptitude, that creativity is too difficult to measure, that high-ability students don’t face problems and challenges, so it is fair to teach all children the same way, etc. Is intensive stimulation of a child’s brain very early in the development really crucial? Is kindergarten really too late? Does school really kill creativity? Are education and creativity in art really nothing but “art for art’s sake”? Recent studies show that there are even more stereotypes about giftedness and creativity nowadays than three decades ago. The presentation will use viewpoints of different studies to focus on some of those myths and their possible perniciousness for the development of the individual child and also for the society. 

Valentin Bucik studied psychology (and reached PhD in 1993) at University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He works as Full Professor for psychological methodology at the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. He was head of department, vice-dean and dean of the faculty, serving two terms. He teaches different courses at all three levels of study of psychology in Ljubljana, including Research methodology, Multivariate data analysis, Test theory, Applied psychometrics and Intelligence, giftedness and creativity. He was a visiting professor or invited lecturer at state universities in Sarajevo, Zagreb, Graz, Trier, Bratislava and Zürich. For the last four years he is a trustee of all three cycles of psychology studies (and visiting professor) at the University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, Slovak Republic. He was one of the associate editors of the European Journal of Psychological Assessment and secretary general of the European Association of Psychological Assessment, and is member of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences and the International Society for Intelligence Research. He served as chair of the National Committee for Matura (2004-2008) and is a member of the committee from 1998. He is also a member of Expert group for gifted education at the National education institute of the Republic of Slovenia. His main research areas are psychological methodology, psychological testing, test construction and adaptation, and different areas of differential psychology (structure of intelligence, the role of speed-of-information processing in g, relationship between intelligence, temperament and personality structure), as well as methodological problems of standardized knowledge assessment and examination in schools, tracking the standards of quality in school and educational system evaluation. Lately he is focused on different models explaining giftedness and is particularly interested in the relationship between giftedness and creativity and in the impact that creativity (especially in arts) has on the development, education and academic efficacy in children and youth.

Professor Dean Ajduković, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Evaluation of Interventions: Trendiness or Professional Responsibility?

Interventions are planned procedures aiming to advance a suboptimal situation and improve some aspect of well-being of individuals, groups and communities. The intervention spectrum in psychosocial field includes promotion of desired condition, prevention of risks and adversities, treatment to improve the current condition, and maintaining the achieved state after treatment. Every intervention requires resources which is reflected in key questions: Is the intervention achieving anticipated goals? How do we know this? Is the ratio of resource investment and achieved goals acceptable? Since accountability for use of resources grows, demand for evaluation of interventions and the number of involved stakeholders also increase. The routine use of term "evaluation" has become part of jargon sometimes showing trendiness and not its meaning. This is the case when presenting data that say nothing about achieving targeted change. Since the ambition of psychology is to explain, predict and influence human behavior to improve well-being, it has a prominent role in evaluation research. Psychology has methods to assess person's experiences and behaviors, and to document changes, which is the core of evaluation. Methodology of experimental psychology is the "gold standard", but of disputed ecological validity. Therefore, different types of evidence of the effectiveness of interventions are used. One of key challenges of evaluation is using indicators of achieved goals in the real world when sufficient control of conditions is not possible. Creativity and rigor in operationalizing evaluation indicators is required. The use of previously unavailable new technologies in evaluating treatment effects and challenges of evaluating complex psychosocial interventions will be illustrated.

Dean Ajduković, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology at the Department of Psychology, University of Zagreb. His research interests include intergroup relations in ethnically divided communities, post-conflict community social reconstruction, development and evaluation of psychosocial interventions, prevention of violence in adolescent relationships, psychosocial response in disaster management. He has directed over 30 research and intervention projects and served as co-principal investigator in FP6, FP7 and other EU projects. He lectured in a number of centers of excellence in the US and Europe, and published 125 research papers in peer reviewed journals and books. He served as consultant and trainer in countries affected by upheaval such as Bosnia Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ingushetia and a reviewer for a dozen international professional journals. He has organized several major European professional conferences. He served as president (1993-2013) of the Society for Psychological Assistance (SPA), member of the Council of the International Society for Health and Human Rights (ISHHR, 1998-2011); Board member (1997-2007) and president (2003-2005) of the European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). He is president of the Croatian Society for Traumatic Stress. His accomplishments were recognized with the “Ramiro Bujas” award for scientific excellence (2005), National Annual Award for scientific excellence (2005), “Fiat Psychologia” award for promotion of applied psychology (2009), “Wolter de Loos” award for contribution to European psychotraumatology (2011). 

Posters are scheduled on Friday, April 17th, in two sessions divided according to first author’s family name (from 9 am till 1 pm authors from A to Ma and from 2 pm till 6 pm authors from Mi to Ž) in the lobby in front of the Library. We urge colleagues who have a poster presentation to display their posters on the prepared panels at 8:30 am (or 1:30 pm), and to take them down at 1 pm (or 6:00 pm).