ABILITY OF PSYCHOLOGISTS TO ESTIMATE VALIDITIES OF PERSONNEL TESTS<sup>1</sup>

Parry, Mary Ellen

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1968.tb00319.x

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Why are we optimistic about the outcome of this research? The results of our re-analysis (Schmidt and Hunter, Note 5) of Parry's (1968) study, discussed earlier, are one reason. But this question can best be answered with an example.…”

Section: Rational Vs Empirical Estimates Of Validitiesmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Rational estimates may be more accurate than estimates from empirical studies unless sample sizes in empirical studies are rather large. A re-analysis of data from the single previous study (Parry, 1968) on this question strongly suggests that this hypothesis might be borne out (Schmidt and Hunter,Note 5). This re-analysis used a special chi-square statistic to show that there was no significant difference in Parry's data between rational and empirical validity estimates.…”

Section: Rational Vs Empirical Estimates Of Validitiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

THE FUTURE OF CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY¹

Schmidt

Hunter

1980

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a result of rejection by personnel psychologists of the erroneous law of small numbers and of the adoption of correct inferential procedures, the future of criterion‐related validity promises to be bright. Probable future developments include: (a) widespread appreciation of the low statistical power characteristic of small samples; (b) rejection of the traditional belief that validities are situationally specific; (c) widespread validity generalization based on new methods; (d) research demonstrations that rational estimates of validity are often superior in accuracy to empirical estimates; (e) widespread acceptance of research findings showing that single‐group and differential validity by race are artifactual rather than substantive in origin and that test unfairness by race is a nonproblem; (f) increased application of decision‐theoretic dollar utility analyses to selection programs; and (g) progress in the establishment of general principles and theories about trait‐performance relations in the world of work.

show abstract

Section: Rational Vs Empirical Estimates Of Validitiesmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Rational Vs Empirical Estimates Of Validitiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

THE FUTURE OF CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY¹

Schmidt

Hunter

1980

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official policy of the organizations with which they are affiliated The authors would like to thank Leonard Swanson of the Naval Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, for his assistance in obtaining the data used in this study Requests for reprints should be sent to Frank Schmidt, U S Office of Personnel Management, Room 3G29, 1900 E Street, N W, Washington, DC 20415 from criterion-related studies unless the sample sizes in such studies are rather large A reanalysis of data from the single previous study (Parry, 1968) on this question suggested that this hypothesis might be borne out (Schmidt & Hunter,Note 1) This reanalysis used a special chi-square statistic to show that there was no significant difference in Parry's data between judged and sample validity estimates. If successful, expert judgment will provide an alternative approach to validity estimation Where the validity generalization model has not been or cannot (for lack of data) be applied, and where criterion-related validity studies are technically infeasible, validities could be estimated by expert judges…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of employment test validities by expert judgment.

Schmidt

Hunter²,

Croll³

et al. 1983

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature.

McDaniel

Morgeson

Finnegan

et al. 2001

Journal of Applied Psychology

363

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although situational judgment tests have a long history in the psychological assessment literature and continue to be frequently used in employment contexts, there has been virtually no summarization of this literature. The purpose of this article is to review the history of such tests and present the results of a meta-analysis on criterion-related and construct validity. On the basis of 102 coefficients and 10,640 people, situational judgment tests showed useful levels of validity (rho = .34) that were generalizable. A review of 79 correlations between situational judgment tests and general cognitive ability involving 16,984 people indicated that situational judgment tests typically evidence relationships with cognitive ability (rho = .46). On the basis of the literature review and meta-analytic findings, implications for the continued use of situational judgment tests are discussed, particularly in terms of recent investigations into tacit knowledge.

show abstract

ABILITY OF PSYCHOLOGISTS TO ESTIMATE VALIDITIES OF PERSONNEL TESTS¹

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

THE FUTURE OF CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY¹

THE FUTURE OF CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY¹

Estimation of employment test validities by expert judgment.

Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

ABILITY OF PSYCHOLOGISTS TO ESTIMATE VALIDITIES OF PERSONNEL TESTS1

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

THE FUTURE OF CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY1

THE FUTURE OF CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY1

Estimation of employment test validities by expert judgment.

Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

ABILITY OF PSYCHOLOGISTS TO ESTIMATE VALIDITIES OF PERSONNEL TESTS¹

THE FUTURE OF CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY¹

THE FUTURE OF CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY¹