A Comparison of Domain Sampling Procedures for Test Construction

Lipscomb, M S

doi:10.21236/ada258150

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, these tasks were placed into quartiles of learning difficulty (Mumford, Weeks, Harding, & Fleishman, 1987) on the basis of task inventory data. Third, tasks were randomly selected within quartiles with the restriction that 40% of the tasks be selected from the fourth (most difficult) quartile, 30% from the third quartile, 20% from the second quartile, and 10% from the first (least difficult) quartile (Lipscomb, 1984).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specification of the criterion construct space: An application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis.

Lance¹,

Teachout²,

Donnelly³

1992

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis to test alternative latent structures underlying performance in multiple dimensions as measured by work samples and three rating sources. The model receiving strongest support was one that specified multidimensional trait (performance dimension) and measurement method second-order factors (SOFs). This model exhibited significant convergent and discriminant validity, showed significant measurement method effects, and indicated that different measurement methods assess somewhat different aspects of the total criterion construct space. Significant correlations between measurement method SOFs and performance predictors suggest the need to reconsider the interpretation of method factors, not as bias, but as possibly representing different overall perspectives on performance.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%