Validity at Risk? the Future of Generative AI Use by Candidates in Assessments

ABSTRACT In this commentary on Lievens and Dunlop (2024), we critically evaluate the implications of candidate GenAI use from the perspectives of criterion‐ and construct‐related validity. While the focal article provides valuable scenarios for understanding the role of GenAI use by candidates, we argue it may underestimate the speed of technological development and overstate the generalizability of augmentation across all job types. By considering increasing GenAI accessibility, we highlight how ease of use may weaken the diagnostic value of GenAI‐related variance in assessments. Furthermore, we propose experimental paradigms to empirically investigate the impact of GenAI on criterion‐ and construct‐related validity by framing GenAI as either an impersonator or an assistant. Finally, we reflect on a future where GenAI agents may challenge existing conceptions of construct validity, calling for a rethinking of the way we define and measure psychological constructs in the age of AI.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Published
2025-12-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.70035
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.37
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Validity at Risk? the Future of Generative AI Use by Candidates in Assessments

Djurre Holtrop, Roderick Bronzwaer
1 citations
International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
article

Validity at Risk? the Future of Generative AI Use by Candidates in Assessments

Djurre Holtrop, Roderick Bronzwaer
article en
1 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this commentary on Lievens and Dunlop (2024), we critically evaluate the implications of candidate GenAI use from the perspectives of criterion‐ and construct‐related validity. While the focal article provides valuable scenarios for understanding the role of GenAI use by candidates, we argue it may underestimate the speed of technological development and overstate the generalizability of augmentation across all job types. By considering increasing GenAI accessibility, we highlight how ease of use may weaken the diagnostic value of GenAI‐related variance in assessments. Furthermore, we propose experimental paradigms to empirically investigate the impact of GenAI on criterion‐ and construct‐related validity by framing GenAI as either an impersonator or an assistant. Finally, we reflect on a future where GenAI agents may challenge existing conceptions of construct validity, calling for a rethinking of the way we define and measure psychological constructs in the age of AI.

International Journal of Selection and AssessmentVol. 34(1)
Tilburg University (NL), De Hoogstraat Revalidatie (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.