JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

No abstract

No abstract

This study compares the relative accuracy of two methods of estimating employment test validity, (a) expert judgment and (b) small sample criterion-related validation studies The study was based on Navy data with samples of over 3,000 for each of nine jobs, with validity results on six tests for each job Twenty experienced psychologists estimated the observed validity for each of the 54 test-job combinations Both the random and systematic error in the expert judgments were evaluated Psychologists typically underestimated the validity by a small amount (an average systematic error of 019) On the average, in order to equal the accuracy of a single judge, the sample size of a criterion-related validation study would have to be 92 To match the accuracy of an average across four judges, the sample size must be 326 The sample size must be 1,164 to match the accuracy of the pooled judgment of 30 judges These results indicate that, given highly trained and experienced judges, expert judgment may provide more accurate estimates of validity for cognitive tests than do local criterion-related validation studies 0 <4 [2X1-1]= fl-p

Colorblindness is often conceptualized as a set of deeply held but unrecognized ideological tenets. However, we believe that colorblindness has also now become an explicit cultural discourse involving self-conscious claims and specific convictions. To illustrate this point—which has both conceptual and empirical implications—we introduce the notion of colorblindness as identity. We define this concept as subjectively meaningful, self-asserted identification with colorblindness. We use data from a nationally representative survey to explore the social determinants of colorblind identification and assess its relationship to both colorblind ideologies and standard attitudinal measures. We find that a relatively large percentage of Americans across racial lines identify as colorblind. Furthermore, such identification is connected to racial ideologies but not all tenets of colorblind racism. For white Americans, colorblind identification is associated with decreased perceptions of social distance, but not support for policies designed to ameliorate the effects of racial discrimination. We conclude that colorblind identification is a unique social phenomenon, connected to views on race but not always in the ways that existing research would predict. We also suggest directions for further exploration of the depth of colorblindness as an identity form and implications for theorizing colorblind discourse more generally.