Continuing the search for social intelligence

Brown, Larry T.; Anthony, Randall G.

doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90059-z

Cited by 41 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This was even true for the explicitly verbalized tasks of the open, written WCR-responses. This is particularly remarkable as deficient discriminant validity, as contrasted to academic intelligence, has been portrayed as being particularly problematic in various measures of social competence (e.g., Brown and Anthony 1990) and also especially for video tests (Curtis et al 1994;Desmarais et al 1994;Smiderle et al 1994;Weekley and Jones 1997).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of Stimulus and Response Components in a Video Test of Social Competence

Funke

Schuler

1998

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various stimulus components (video, orally-presented questions) and response components (multiple-choice, written, orally-given replies) of situational judgement tests of occupational social competency were investigated as to their impact upon the validity for a behaviororiented role playing criterion while keeping test content constant. The stimulus component video alone had no impact upon validity. The response components contributed to validity. Validity increased with improved fidelity of response components. Concerning stimulusresponse-combinations, the validity of two video tests (r = 0.17 and r = 0.36) was not higher than the validity of similar oral questioning (r = 0.13 and r = 0.37) but was significantly lower than a situational interview (r = 0.59). Response fidelity proved to be a bottleneck regarding validity of video tests. As a result, it is recommended that, in order to maximize validity of video and multimedia efforts, the developers of video-and multimedia tests focus special attention on response fidelity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of Stimulus and Response Components in a Video Test of Social Competence

Funke

Schuler

1998

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2) To Study the social intelligence of undergraduate students in relation to their subject streams.…”

Section: Objectives Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Success in academic performance of the students depends on their intelligence (Panigrahi, 2005) and it is positively related to social intelligence (Brown & Anthony, 1990). Bailey (1968) studied the assessment of social intelligence among the students of fifth grade using friendship rating which revealed that social intelligence (pear acceptance) co-varies with academic achievement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Intelligence of Undergraduate Students In Relation To Their Gender and Subject Stream

Saxena¹

2013

IOSR-JRME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A lack of correlations between social understanding and personality is a common finding in the field of SI (see Brown & Anthony, ; Riggio, Messamer, & Throckmorton, ). It remains an open question whether social understanding and personality constructs are independent or whether this result has to be attributed to the application of different methods (performance test vs. self‐report measure).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert and Target Scoring: Their relation, corresponding test instructions, and their effects on the construct validity of the video‐based social understanding test (VSU)

Conzelmann

Goerke

2015

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the relation between expert and target scoring of a video-based social understanding test (VSU) under two different types of instructions (internal and observer). The effects of the scoring methods and instructions on the VSU's construct validitywere also examined. A total of 529 pilot applicants completed the VSU (some with internal and some with observer instructions), cognitive ability and knowledge tests, and a personality questionnaire. A subsample (n = 132) completed the VSU again with the other instructions and participated in an assessment center (AC). The two scores were moderately correlated; correlations decreased when the instructions were considered. Neither expert nor target scores showed convergent validity with AC variables; none of the scoringinstruction combinations showed significant associations with the remaining measures.Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. GPA = grade point average (corresponding to the final grade of the university entrance diploma); inf = information; observ = observer; instr = instructions. a The sample size deviates from the maximum possible sample size since some of the applicants did not have the university entrance diploma when they applied.Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. S1 = Study 1; S2 = Study 2; T = target scoring; E = expert scoring; I = internal instructions; O = observer instructions; Inf. = information; GPA = grade point average (corresponding to the final grade on the university entrance diploma). a The sample size deviates from the maximum possible sample size because some of the applicants did not have the university entrance diploma when they applied.

show abstract

Continuing the search for social intelligence

Cited by 41 publications

References 16 publications

Validity of Stimulus and Response Components in a Video Test of Social Competence

Validity of Stimulus and Response Components in a Video Test of Social Competence

Social Intelligence of Undergraduate Students In Relation To Their Gender and Subject Stream

Expert and Target Scoring: Their relation, corresponding test instructions, and their effects on the construct validity of the video‐based social understanding test (VSU)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About