Perception on Selection

8/21/2019 Perception on Selection

1/7

Vol. 5(4) pp. 95-101, August, 2013

DOI: 10.5897/JPAPR12.006

ISSN 2141-2480 2013 Academic Journals

http://www.academicjournals.org/JPAPR

Journal of Public Administration and PolicyResearch

Full Length Research Paper

Perception of selection interview, selection test andemployee performance: An empirical analysis

Opayemi, A.S.* and Oyesola, T.M.

Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Accepted 26 November, 2012

Unlike in the past, a critical success factor for organizations in this 21st

century in achieving andsustaining a competitive advantage is by combating the challenge of improving quality and servicedelivery. This study using the ex-post facto design critically analyzed the role of selection interview andselection test on employees performance. One hundred and ninety (190) (males = 96 {50.5%}; females =94 {49.5%}) participants whose age ranged between 20 and 55, were involved in this study. Threehypotheses were tested using the t-test and ANOVA, the findings showed that female universityemployee unlike males favourably perceived the link between selection interview, selection test and

employee performance t (188) = 3.86, p.05. The result also revealed that university employees who are

singles, more than the married, reported more favourable perception of the link between selection

interview, selection test and employee performance t (188) = 6.43, p.05. It also showed that university

employees in the age range of 20-25 years reported the highest mean score on perception of the linkbetween selection interview, selection test and employee performance. Therefore, selection interviewand selection test are good predictors of employee performance, if conducted in a standardized form.

Key words: Perception, selection interview, selection test, employee performance.

INTRODUCTION

In the past decades the primary concern of organizationsis usually focused on productions and sales. A criticalsuccess factor for organizations in this 21

st century in

achieving and sustaining a competitive advantage is bycombating the challenge of improving quality and service

delivery (Grant, 1996). This stance can only be actualizedthrough increased employee performance and the key toattaining and sustaining this is selecting and retaining theright people. Finding methods and ways of achievingthese objectives becomes crucial for organizations whichdesire to remain in the market. Hence, selection interviewand selection test have been identified as tools thatuncover candidates knowledge, skills and abilitiesalongside the requirements of the job (Alan, 2004).

However, making wrong selection decision may have afar reaching impact on the organizational functioningincluding, loss of productivity; cost of hiring; orientationand training in replacing a non-performing employee; costof profit forgone due to employee performance; cost of

severance and subsequent cost of further recruitmenand selection (Arthur and Walter, 1995).

These recognized shortcomings about recruitmenerrors necessitate a turnaround in the process of recruit-ment into job vacancies in organizations. Change hasbecomeeuphemeraleverywherebeiteconomy,politicsbusiness, environment etc. (Chand, 2006). The changingenvironment of human resource management is markedby characteristics like work diversity, economics and

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: +234-803-431-3570.


2/7

96 J. Public Adm. Policy Res.

technological change, globalization, organizational re-structuring, changes in the nature of jobs and work andso on. The logic of employee selection could simply bedrawn from the fact that if variability in physical and

psychological charac-teristics were not so prevalent,there would be little need for selection of applicant to fillvarious jobs (Bernadim, 2003). Without variability amongindividuals in abilities, aptitudes, interests and personalitytraits, one would expect all job candidates to performcomparably. Based on this, Boroucki and Burke (1999)expressed that as jobs become more complex, individualdifferences in output variability also increases. Hence theneed to determine based on certain criteria and media,who is best fit to occupy a position among so manyapplicants.

The role of human resource decisions in creating andsustaining organizational performance and competitiveadvantage is imperative. Researchers in the field of

strategic human resource management (SHRM) haveincreasingly relied on the resource-based view of theorganization to explain the role of human resourcepractices in organizations performance (Delery andHarold, 1996). However, HR practices can only be asource of sustained competitive advantage when theysupport resources or competencies that provide value tothe organization (Anderson and West, 1998). Emphasishas also been made that the behavior of an employee atwork plays an important role in attaining organizationalgoal and it therefore becomes necessary to understandwhat predicts employee performance.

Employee performance has been examined as a joint

function of employee individual characteristics and theorganizational environment characteristics (Schneider,2001). For employee performance excellence, organiza-tions must search for HRM models that strengthen theirbid for competitive advantage such as sound strategy foremployee selection (Amy et al., 2005). In a bid to carryout a successful selection exercise, there is need toassess the suitability of candidates by predicting theextent to which they will be able to carry out a rolesuccessfully. Nonetheless, to eliminate roadblocks tosuccessful employee performance, Barrick and Mount(1991) asserts that apart from providing adequateresources to get job done right and on time, adequate

screening and selection of suitable employee must begiven careful attention. This, according to Mullins (2007)is ensuring quality at source. Clearly, there should be afit between the intended strategy of an organization andthe characteristics of the people who are expected toimplement it thus hiring the right people is the firstphase of any human resource management programme(Armstrong, 1999).

Selection entails much more than choosing the bestavailable person, selecting the appropriate and talents comes packaged in a person attempts to fit what anapplicant can and wants to do with what the organization

needs (Fajana, 2006). More than anything else, place-ment of human resources should be seen as a matchingprocess, and how well an employee is matched to a jobaffects the amount and performance of that employee in

a given task (Kandula, 2004). Research also has shownthat whether an employer or human resource profess-sional uses specific knowledge, skills, abilities or otherapproach, effective selection of employees involves usingcriteria and predictors of job performance. Hence, theheart of an effective selection system is knowledge ofwhat constitutes appropriate job performance andwhether employee characteristics are associated withsuch performance (Hui and Aichia, 2004).

The concept of selection has been defined fromdifferent views by various researchers and this is repre-sented as follows, that selection is the process of hiringoffering jobs to one or more candidates from theapplications received through recruitment; manageria

decision making process through which suitable personswho are likely to perform on the job are identified andselected from the pool of applicant (Brain and Gerhart1996). There are various methods through which employee selection can be carried out, including, but nolimited to, selection test and selection interview.

Alan (2004) and Armstrong (2009) consider selectioninterview and selection test as most suitable tools topredict prospective employee performance. Severajustifications have been put up to defend this and theyinclude the fact that selection interview helps to obtainand assess information on the job for which they arebeing considered in comparison with the predictors made

for other candidates. Selection interview to Scott (1995is a purposeful exchange of ideas, the answering oquestions and communication between two or morepersons or according to Alan (2004), it is a conversationwith a purpose not infrequently the purpose is obscure tothe point of invisibility, rather, candidates are induced totalk freely with their interviewers about their experienceand careers though this conversation has to be planneddirected and controlled to achieve the main essence ofinterview which is to make an accurate assessment of thecandidates suitability for a job. The reports of Smith(1991); Eder and Harris (1999) and earlier researchfindings of Weisner and Cronshaw (1988); Shankar

(2004) supported the values of selection interview.On selection test, The Uniform Selection Guidelinesissued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asserts that any employment requirement is a test(Campbell et al., 1993). Supporting the validity oselection test, The British Psychological Society advisedorganizations on essentiality to choose tests that meethe four criteria of sensitivity, standardization, reliabilityand validity. The history of tests, as cited by Saiyadain(2002), can be traced back to the efforts of FranciesGalton who developed a variety of tests of sensorydetermination to measure persons intellect as far back


3/7

as 1883 (Kandula, 2004). Since then, Saiyadain (2002)noted that there is no looking back; as a result, a largenumber of general aptitude tests and specific skill testshas been put in place for the purpose of selection.

Selection test is a device that uncovers the informationabout the candidate which is not known throughapplication blank and interview, in this way selection is anadjunct of a selection method (Mamoria, 1994). Deniz etal. (1993) defined test as a sample of an aspect of anindividuals behavior, performance and attitude. Inaddition, Schmidt and Hunter (1981) observe that whenthey are combined with a structured interview, they hadthe highest predictive value of all the methods ofselection tools studied. Several research findings haveshown that the basic premise underlying strategic humanresource management (SHRM) is that organizations whohave greater congruence between their human resourcepractices and strategies enjoy superior performance

through the cumulative efforts of their employees (Dyer,1984a, 1984b; Fombrum et al., 1984; Jackson andSchuler, 1995; Jackson et al., 1989; Schuler and Jackso,1987a, 1987b, 1988; Schuler and MacMillian, 1984). Theconcept of employee performance received increasedattention recently as both managers and organizationalanalyst are finding ways to increase employee retentionand performance (Demsetz, 1991).

Agreeing to the aforementioned, meta-analytic reviewsof validities studies unanimously supported thesuperiority of interviews (Huffcutt and Arthur, 1994;Hunter and Hunter, 1984; McDaniel et al., 1994; Wiesnerand Cronshaw, 1988; Wright et al., 1989; Conway et al.,

1995; Marchese and Muchinsky, 1993). This claim isevident in a review of structure in the selection interviewfocusing on psychometric consequences, and alsoconsiders a broader range of structure components(Armstrong, 1999). Therefore, effects of interviewstructure on reliability, validity and user reactions of thestudy are 15 components which were further divided into2 categories: Those that influence the content of theinterview or the nature of the information elicited andthose that influence the evaluation process or thejudgement of the information elicited. The impact of eachcomponent in the study is evaluated against theaforementioned criteria. Further, 6 types of reliability were

considered: test-retest, reliability, interrater reliability,candidate consistency, interviewer-candidate interaction,internal consistency and interrater agreement.

According to Campion (1988) Campion et al., 1994),Delery et al. (1994), Edwards et al. (1990), Green et al.(1993), Hakel (1971), Latham and Saari (1984) andLatham and Skarlicki (1995), one of the highest level ofstructure that enhances validity of selection interview isthat exact same questions be asked each candidate inthe same order and well as using the sameparalanguage. Another study which aimed at proofing thevalidity of selection interview was done by carrying out a

Opayemi and Oyesola 97

comprehensivereviewandmetaanalysisbyMcDanieletal(1994).Theanalysesarebasedon245coefficientsderivedfrom86,311individuals.Resultsshowthatinterviewvaliditydepends on the content of the interview (situational, job-

related or psychological). Further findings reveal thastructured interview was found to have higher validitythan unstructured interview. Therefore, since selectioninterviews are pre-employment tests and, as such shouldbe standardized samples of behavior. Standardizationimplies uniformity of procedure in administration andscores. Using the same procedure may be the most basicway to convert the interview from a conversation into ascientific measurement (Michael et al., 1998).

On selection test, Deniz et al. (1993) conducted a com-prehensive meta-analysis based on 665 validitycoefficients across 576,460 data points to investigatewhether selection test validities are generalizable and toestimate differences in validity due to potential mode-

rating influences. Results indicates that integrity testvalidities are substantial for predicting employee perfor-mance and counter productive behaviours on the jobsuch as theft, absenteeism etc. Second, the estimatedmean operational predictive validity of integrity test forpredicting supervisory ratings of employee performanceis 0.41. Also results from predictive validity studiesconducted on applicants using external criterion mea-sures indicates that integrity tests predict the broadcriterion of organizationally disruptive behavior betterthan they predict employee theft alone. However, despitethe influence of moderators, integrity test validities arepositive across situations and setting (Robert et al.

2006). Several faults have been identified with theNigerian university systems, and have also been accusedof being the major cause of the poor quality of universitygraduates that are continually churned out in the outsideworld. Therefore, this study is necessitated to sample theperception of university employees, who are mostly nottaken through the normal employment processes as donein the other institutions.

METHODOLOGY

The ex-post facto design was utilized in carrying out this studyusing a total of one hundred and ninety participants, academic and

non-academic staff of the Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria, inthe study. This includes 96 males and 94 females, with a mean ageof 26 years (SD = 6.12) and age, ranging from 20 to 60 years. Theparticipants were selected from the four faculties in the universityincluding Christians, Muslims and others who have other beliefsThe independent variables were selection interview and selectiontests while the dependent variable was employee performance.

The socio-demographic characteristics of the participants areshown in Table 1. The study was a survey study, which specificallyadopted ex-post facto design. A sample population of one hundredand ninety respondents was selected, including both the academicand non academic staff, using both purposive and random samplingmethods, respectively. The purposive was used in the selection ofthe different categories of staff in the institution, academic and non-


4/7


Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristicsof the participants.

Variable N (%)

Gender

Male 96 50.5

Female 94 49.5

Age (years)

20-25 26 13.7

26-31 34 17.9

32-37 34 17.9

39-43 22 11.6

44-49 36 18.9

50-59 38 20.0

Marital status

Single 86 43.2

Married 104 54.7

Table 2. A summary table of t-test for independent measuresshowing the difference between male and female Universityemployees on perception of the link between selection interview,selection test and employee performance.

Gender N X SD Df T P

Male 96 16.72 3.30188 -3.86


5/7

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of age groups andscores on perception of selection interview, selectiontest and employee performance.

Age group N X

20-25 years 26 20.15

26-31 years 34 19.41

32-37 years 34 17.50

38-43 years 22 17.82

44-49 years 36 17.36

Others 38 14.50

Source: Field survey, 2010.

three was supported by the result of the study. Table 5gives a good descriptive analysis of the mean scores of

the age-groups on perception of the link betweenselection interview, selection test and employeeperformance.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study is to contribute to theknowledge of understanding the link among selectioninterview, selection test and employee performance.Assessing the role of selection interview and selectiontest as it relates to employee performance offers a uniqueapproach to expanding prior research on related issues.

There were numerous findings from this work.Hypothesis 1 stated that there would be significant differ-rence between male and female university employees onperception of the link among selection interview, selectiontest and employee performance. Findings indicated thatfemale university employees reported more favourableperception of the link among selection interviews,selection test and employee performance than maleuniversity employees. The plausible explanation to thisfinding is that in a system where gender bias is a strongdetermining influence in the selection of employees,many females in spite of their qualifications have beendenied several opportunities in getting jobs they are

qualified for or in placement and promotional exercises toadvance their career growth. This result is an indicationthat if objective criteria (selection test and selectioninterview) are used in employment processes, morefemales will be opportuned to be selected for employ-ment than the numbers being employed now, whencompared with their male counterparts. This indicatedthat female university employees have a better under-standing that effective selection test and selectioninterview produced best candidates, who subsequentlywill perform at considerable level for organizationalsuccess and continuity than male university employees.


This supports Hui and Aichia (2004) and Kandula (2004)who opined that employees will perform better on the jobif proper matching is done between the employed and thesubsequent job placement. Furthermore, this result also

revealed the fact that good selection test and selectioninterviews produced good results which are good fororganizational sustainability.

The tested hypothesis 2 revealed that single universityemployees reported more favourable perception of thelink between selection test and selection interview andemployee performance than married university employees. Marriage in Africa has always played a veryimportant role in the distribution of roles and respon-sibilities in the society. It is also assumed that the marriedare more responsible than the singles; this is becauseAfricans believe that it takes responsibility to live with aspouse and take care of someone else outside you. Inview of this, many singles are usually at the receiving end

when they have to compete with the married to get a jobor to rise in their career path in the organizationHowever, in the line of this study, the singles perceivesthat if the criteria for employment and assessment ofemployees are based on objectivity, the singles sees theuse of tests and interviews on the job as majordeterminant of employee performance rather than thestereotypic assumptions hold by the culture. This hastherefore established the on-going fact that a good linkexists among selection test, selection interview andemployee performance.

The result on hypothesis three revealed that agegroups of university employees significantly influenced

their perception of the link between selection interviewselection test and employee performance. In explanationthis result brings out the fact that employee performanceis a function of many factors and not just one. The use ofeither the selection test or selection interview alonecannot successfully predict employee performancerather, the use of both on the employee. The individuaacademic intelligence is quite different from the workexperience that is needed to perform excellently on a jobThis claim is supported by Donald and Cummings (1977)who views employee performance primarily as a joinfunction of the correspondence or degree of agreementbetween individual abilities and the ability demands of the

job. It follows that the ability of these individuals interacwith the ability requirements of the job and the individuaability to perform is highest when the ability demands othe job match the abilities of the individual.

Consequently, under-matching, that is, whenindividuals do not possess adequate capability toperform; obviously results in lower relative ability toperform. Concurring to this result, is the jobcharacteristics model which indicated that job employeeperformance is related to psychological, behavioural andorganizational outcome (Nonaka, 1991; Clark andFujimoto, 1991; Wheelwright and Clark, 1992).


6/7


Conclusion, Implications and Recommendations

In conclusion, since there should be a fit betweenintended strategies of an organization and the charac-

teristics of people who are expected to implement it.Then, great effort should be made to ensure that there isquality at source. This is the more reason why theInstitute of Work Psychology (2001) sees high employeeperformance as involving three sets of managementpractices among which is developing strategies designedto attract and keep the right people. This study hasestablished that selection interview and selection test isgood predictors of employee performance.

The resulting theory of job characteristics provides amore cogent description that employee performance isnot only a function of job characteristics but a jointfunction of individual characteristics and organizationalcharacteristics. This means that Person-Job fit which is

central to high employee performance will be achieved ifcandidates competencies correlate with the job require-ments. It follow that an organization human resource canbe a threshold and serve as a competitive advantage dueto their aggregate efficient and effective input sinceemployees are fit into the right job. Closer obse rvation ofthis study reveals that employees will perform as far asorganizational needs meets with their individual needs,desires and aspiration. Also the knowledge of candidatespersonality like conscientiousness and neuroticism willhelp practitioners predict suitable candidate who willperform well on the job.

The study has established the relevance of some

personal attributes or socio-demographic factors asinfluencing perception of the link between selectioninterview, selection test and employee performance. Thepersonal attributes of gender, age, marital status havebeen found relevant in influencing perception of the linkamong selection interview, selection test and employeeperformance. This research offer solace to managers,practitioners, government and relevant institutions grab-bling with uncertainties and demands of competitiveenvironment. Corroborating, this opinion is the sub-mission of Grant (1996), that under conditions of intenseand dynamic competition; internal capabilities like humanresource provide a more stable basis for strategy than

market positioning. Since employee performance isproofed to be a joint function of employee characteristicsand organizational characteristics, providing health policypolicies and programmes that foster variables likemotivation, teamwork, communication, training and re-training, participatory-management, leadership, coaching,counseling to mention a few is crucial if high employeeperformance must be recorded. Also for employeeperformance excellence, organizations must search forHRM models that strengthen their bid for competitiveadvantage such as sound strategy for employeeselection. In sum, the results suggest that having the right

employee on the right job and enforcing soundperformance climate are significantly related to employeeperformance.

LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

Like all studies, this study has limitations. One of thedeficiencies is that among all selection tools, selectioninterview and selection test was only assessed aspredictors of employee performance neglecting othepredictors. Another potential limitation is associated withthe jobholder component in the study; not all job statuscategories were sampled. Examples are that of thesupport staff such as house keeper, security, and so onThis study initially was meant to carry out an empiricalcomparative analysis of two private universities but dueto lack of fund the research was limited to only Lead City

University, Ibadan, Nigeria.

REFERENCES

Alan P (2004). Human Resource Management in a Business ContexInternational Thompson Business Press, High Holborn HouseLondon

Amy Kristof-Brown L, Ryan DZ, Johnson EC (2005). Consequences oIndividual Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, PersonOrganisation, Person-Group & Person-Supervisor Fit; PersonnePsychol. 58:281-342.

Anderson NR, West MA (1998). Measuring Climate for Work GroupInnovation: Development and Validation of the Team ClimateInventory; J. Organ. Behav. 19:235-258

Armstrong M (2009). Human Resource Management Practice: The Bath

Press, Bath, UK.Armstrong M (1999). A handbook of Human Resource Managemen

Practice Richard Stafford, 2007. EU/UNDP National CapacityBuilding Programme for State and Non-State Actors in Seychelles.

Arthur HB, Walter HC (1995). Employee Attitudes and EmployeePerformance: Psychol. Bull. 52(5):396-424.

Barrick MR, Mount MK (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensionsand Job Performance: A Meta Analysis: Personnel Psychol. 44(1):26

Bernadim HJ (2003). Human Resource Management: An ExperimentaApproach; Mc-Graw-Hill, Irwin.

Boroucki CC, Burke MJ (1999). An Examination of Service-RelatedAntecedents to Retail Store Performance: J. Organ. Behav. 20:943962.

Brain B, Gerhart B (1996). The Impact of Human ResourceManagement on Organizational Performance: Progress andProspect: Acad. Manage. J. 39(4):779-801.

Campbell JP, McCloy RA, Oppler SH, Sager CE (1993). A Theory ofPerformance, In: Schmitt N & Borman WC (Eds): Personnel Selectionin Organization; San Francisco-Jossey-Bass pp.35-70.

Campion MA (1988). Interdisciplinary approached to job design: Aconstructive replication with extensions. J. Appl. Psycho. 73, 467-481.

Campion MA, Campion JE, Hudson JP Jr. (1994). Structuredinterviewing: A note on incremental validity and alternative questiontypes. J. Appl. Psychol. 79: 998-1002.

Chand SC (2006). Human Resource Development & Management; SChand & Co. Ltd, New Delhi.

Delery JE, Harold DD (1996). Modes of Theorerising in StrategicHuman Resource Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingencyand Configurational Performance Predictions: Acad. Manage. J39(4):802-835.


7/7

Delery JE, Wright PM, McArthur K, Anderson DC (1994). Cognitiveability tests and the situational interview: A test of incrementalvalidity. Int. J. Sel. Assess., 2: 53-58

Demsetz H (1991). The Theory of the Firm Revisited, In: Williamson OE& Winter SG (Eds): The Nature of the Firm; Oxford University Press,New York pp.159-178.

Deniz OS, Viswesvaran S, Frank L (1993). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Integrity Test Validities: Findings and Implication forPersonnel Selection and Theories of Job Performance J. Appl.Psychol. 78(4):679-703.

Donald PS, Cummings LL (1977). A Theoretical Analysis of the Impactof Task Scope on Employee Performance pp.28-56

Eder RW, Harris MM (1999). Employment interview research: Historicalsummary and introduction. In R.W. Eder and M.M. Harris (Eds.) Theemployment Interview handbook. Newbury Park, CA: SAGEPublications, Inc.

Edwards JC, Johnson EK, Molidor JB (1990). The interview in theadmission process. Acad. Med., 65: 167-177.

Fajana S (2006). Human Resource Management: An Introduction;Labofin & Company, Yaba Lagos.

Grant RM (1996). Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environment:Organisational Capability as Knowledge Integration: J. Organ. Sci.

7:4.Green PC, Alter P, Carr AF (1993). Development of standard anchorsfor scoring generic past behavior questions in structured interviews.Int. J. Sel. Assess, 1:203-212

Hakel MD (1971). Similarity of post interview trait rating intercorrelationsas a contributor t interrater agreement in a structured employmentinterview. J. Appl. Psychol. 55:443-448.

Hema G (2009). Low Employee Output: Parameters, New Delhi.Huffcutt AJ, Arthur W Jr. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited:

Interview validity for entry level jobs. J. Appl. Psychol. 79:184-190.Hunter JE, Hunter RF (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors

of job performance. Psychol. Bull. 96: 72-98.Hui L, Aichia C (2004). A Multilevel Investigation of Factors Influencing

Employee Service Performance and Customer Outcome: Acad.Manage. J. 47(1):41-60.

Kandula B (2004). Human Resource Management in Practice PrenticeHall, New York.

Mamoria CB (1994). Personnel Management; 7th Edition, HimalayaPublishing House, Bombay.


McDaniel MA, Whetzel DL, Schmidt FL, Maurer SD (1994). The Validityof Employment Interview: A Comprehensive Review and Meta

Analysis; J. Appl. Psychol. 79(4):599-616.Michael AC, Elliot DP, Barbara KB (1988). Structured Interviewing

Raising The Psychometric Properties of the Employment InterviewPersonnel Psychol. 41:25-42

Mullins LJ (2007). Management & Organisational Behaviour; PearsonEducation Ltd. Harlow England.

Nonaka I (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company; Harvard BusRev. 69(6):96-104.

Robert PT, Douglas NJ, Mtchell R (2006). Personality Measures asPredictors of Job Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review; PersonnePsychol. J. 44(4):703-742

Saiyadain S (2003). Human Resource Management; Tata McGraw HilPublishing Co. New Delhi.

Schmidt FL, Hunter JE (1981). Employment Testing: Old Theories andNew Research Findings; Am. Psychol. Assoc. J. 36(10):1128-1137.

Schneider B (2001). Fits About Fit; Applied Psychology; Int. Rev50(1):141-152.

Documents

Perception on Selection