From "Selecting Talent: The Upshot from 85 Years of Research"[1]:
> The upshot of this research is that work sample tests (e.g., seeing if people can actually do key elements of a job -- if a secretary can type or a programmer can write code ), general mental ability (IQ and related tests), and structured interviews had the highest validity of all methods examined (Arun, thanks for the corrections). As Arun also suggests, Schmidt and Hunter point out that three combinations of methods that were the most powerful predictors of job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (in other words, hiring someone smart and seeing if they could do the work), GMA plus an integrity test, and GMA plus a structured interview (but note that unstructured interviews, the way they are usually done, are weaker).
> Note that this information about combinations is probably more important than the pure rank ordering, as it shows what blend of methods works best, but here is also the rank order of the 19 predictors examined, rank ordered by the validity coefficient, an indicator of how strongly the individual method is linked to performance:
> 1. Work sample tests (.54)
> 2. GMA tests ..."General mental ability" (.51)
> 3. Employment interviews -- structured (.51)
> ...
This is a summary of the peer reviewed article "The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings."[2]
---
[1] https://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/selecting-ta...
[2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-10661-006