PAPELES DEL PSICÓLOGO Vol. 43-1 Enero - Abril 2022

JOSÉ CARLOS ANDRÉS, DAVID AGUADO Y JESÚS DE MIGUEL 19 S e c c i ó n M o n o g r á f i c a sessment , 22 (2), 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/ij- sa.12067 Ötting, S. K., & Maier, G. W. (2018). The importance of procedural justice in human–machine interactions: Intelligent systems as new decision agents in organizations. Computers in Human Beha- vior , 89 , 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.022 Riebe, L., & Jackson, D. (2014). The use of rubrics in benchmarking and as- sessing employability skills. Journal of Management Education , 38 (3), 319-344 . http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1052562913511437 Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive qualities in distance cour- ses. The American Journal of Distance Education , 17 (2), 77-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1702_2 Roulin, N. (2014). The influence of employers’ use of social networking websites in selection, online self‐promotion, and personality on the like- lihood of faux pas postings. International Journal of Selection and As- sessment , 22 (1), 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12058 Roulin, N., & Bangerter, A. (2013). Social networking websites in person- nel selection. Journal of Personnel Psychology 12 (1), 143-151. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000094 Roulin, N., & Levashina, J. (2019). LinkedIn as a new selection method: Psychometric properties and assessment approach. Personnel Psycho- logy, 72 (2), 187-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12296 Ryan, A. M., & Derous, E. (2016). Highlighting tensions in recruit- ment and selection research and practice. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 24 (1), 54-62. Ryan, A. M., & Derous, E. (2019). The unrealized potential of technology in selection assessment. Journal of Work and Organizational Psycho- logy, 35 (2), 85-92. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a10 Seiter, J. S., & Hatch, S. (2005). Effect of tattoos on perceptions of credibility and attractiveness. Psychological Reports , 96 (3_suppl), 1113-1120. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.96.3c.1113-1120 Shahani-Denning, C., Patel, V., & Zide, J. (2017). Recruiter and applicant use of Linkedin: A spotlight on India. The Psychologist-Manager Jour- nal , 20 (2), 90 –105. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000052 Shannon, M. L., & Stark, C. P. (2003). The influence of physical ap- pearance on personnel selection. Social Behavior and Persona- lity: An International Journal, 31 (6), 613-623. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.6.613 Stellmack, M. A., Konheim-Kalkstein, Y. L., Manor, J. E., Massey, A. R., & Schmitz, J. A. P. (2009). An assessment of reliability and validity of a ru- bric for grading APA-style introductions. Teaching of Psychology , 36 (2), 102-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00986280902739776 Sylva, H., & Mol, S. T. (2009). E‐Recruitment: A study into applicant perceptions of an online application system. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 17 (3), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00473.x Unal, Z., Bodur, Y., & Unal, A. (2012). A standardized rubric for evaluating Webquest design: reliability analysis of ZUNAL Web- quest design rubric. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research , 11 (1), 169-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.28945/1688 Van Iddekinge, C. H., Lanivich, S. E., Roth, P. L., & Junco, E. (2016). Social media for selection? Validity and adverse impact potential of a Face- book-based assessment. Journal of Management , 42 (7), 1811-1835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206313515524 Vaughan, B., Yoxall, J., & Grace, S. (2019). Peer assessment of te- amwork in group projects: Evaluation of a rubric. Issues in Educa- tional Research , 29 (3), 961-978. Villeda, M., McCamey, R., Essien, E., & Amadi, C. (2019). Use of so- cial networking sites for recruiting and selecting in the hiring pro- cess. International Business Research , 12 (3), 66-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n3p66 Wenzlaff, T. L., Fager, J. J., & Coleman, M. J. (1999). What is a ru- bric? Do practitioners and the literature agree?. Contemporary Education , 70 (4), 41. Woods, S. A., Ahmed, S., Nikolaou, I., Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. R. (2020). Personnel selection in the digital age: A review of vali- dity and applicant reactions, and future research challenges. Eu- ropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29 (1), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1681401 Apéndice I Rúbricas para la recogida de la información contenida en los perfiles de LinkedIn Rúbrica 1: Amplitud de la Experiencia Profesional Elemento 1: número de experiencias distintas reflejadas en el perfil (contar las distintas experiencias reflejadas por el candidato en su perfil). 1 (puntuación = 1); 2 (puntuación = 2); 3 (puntuación = 3): de 4 a 5 (puntuación = 4); > 5 (puntuación = 5) Elemento 2: número roles distintos desempeñados en la actividad profesional (contar los roles distintos en cuanto a puesto, categoría, etc.). 1 (puntuación = 1); 2 (puntuación = 2); 3 (puntuación = 3): de 4 a 5 (puntuación = 4); > 5 (puntuación = 5) Elemento 3: número de empresas en las que ha desempeñado actividad profesional (contar las empresas en las que ha tenido actividad profesional). 1 (puntuación = 1); 2 (puntuación = 2); 3 (puntuación = 3): de 4 a 5 (puntuación = 4); > 5 (puntuación = 5) Elemento 4: número de líneas dedicadas a describir la experiencia profesional (contar las líneas en las que se extiende el apartado de experiencia profesional (se cuentan las líneas en el formato que aparece en el perfil). De 0 a 3 (puntuación = 1); de 4 a 7 (puntuación = 2); de 8 a 10 (puntuación = 3): de 11 a 13 (puntuación = 4); de 14 a 18 (puntuación = 5); de 19 a 24 (puntuación = 6); de 25 a 32 (puntuación = 7); de 33 a 42 (puntuación = 8); de 43 a 62 (puntuación = 9); y > 62 (puntuación = 10)