Item Generation Procedures and Background Data Scales: Implications for Construct and Criterion‐related Validity

Abstract

Background data measures are one of the best predictors of job performance. Nonetheless, questions have been raised about their content and construct validity. The present effort describes a set of procedures for developing construct and content valid background data items. Data gathered in seven field studies and six laboratory studies are presented bearing on the reliability and validity of the measures constructed using these item generation procedures. Findings in these studies indicate that construct‐based item generation procedures yield reliable scales evidencing both content and construct validity. Furthermore, these scales are capable of predicting performance in a variety of settings. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings for the development and validation of background data measures are discussed.

Recruiters’ Inferences of Applicant Personality Based on Resume Screening: Do Paper People have a Personality?

“…Thus, students' underlying psychological traits such as extraversion and conscientiousness interact with situational demands to condition students' behavior and experiences that occur during college life (cf. Mumford et al 1996). As observed by Caldwell and Burger (1998), students engaging in more group or social activities while in college may be more extraverted while those achieving more during college might be more conscientious.…”

Environmental Influences on Ethical Decision Making: Climate and Environmental Predictors of Research Integrity

“…pened to participants during their first few months at the university. These environmental influences questions were developed in accordance with the recommendations of Mumford, Costanza, Connelly, and Johnson (1996) and Mumford, Stokes, and Owens (1990) for the construction of background data or life history questions. Accordingly, development of these items began with a review of the literature to identify dimensions of experience that might influence ethical behavior and scientific performance at the individual level (e.g., Arlow & Ulrich, 1980;Harrison & Feit, 1999;Mullins & Sherman, 1993), the group level (e.g., Rallapalli, Vitell, & Szeinbach, 2000;Schminke & Wells, 1999;Trevino & Youngblood, 1990), and the organizational level (e.g., Kim, Emmett, & Sikula, 2001;Verschoor, 1998;Weaver, Trevino, & Cochran, 1999).…”

The sources of leader violence: A comparison of ideological and non-ideological leaders

“…These operational definitions were used to generate a list of 10 to 20 potential behavioral or event markers for each dimension, where markers were formulated to be consistent with both the operational definition and the targeted level at which a variable was held to operate, using a variation on the procedures recommended by Mumford, Costanza, Connelly, & Johnson (1996) and Mumford, Stokes, & Owens (1990). In this panel generation procedure, four psychologists, all doctoral students in industrial and organizational psychology familiar with both the leadership literature and leader biographies, were asked to generate behavioral or event markers for each dimension using the applicable operational definition.…”