Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues.

Meyer, Gregory J.; Finn, Stephen E.; Eyde, Lorraine D.; Kay, Gary G.; Moreland, Kevin L.; Dies, Robert R.; Eisman, Elena J.; Kubiszyn, Tom; Reed, Geoffrey M.

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.56.2.128

Cited by 1,152 publications

(941 citation statements)

References 427 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

832

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Measures of identity and reputation also do not correlate as high as expected because they are assessed through distinct methods that afford different types of information (see Meyer et al, 2001). Clearly, identity-related assessments permit greater access to internal states and experiences that do not happen or are not visible in the company of others.…”

Section: The Methodological and Conceptual Fulcrum: Identity And Repumentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology.

Roberts¹,

Harms²,

Smith³

et al. 2006

Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Methodological and Conceptual Fulcrum: Identity And Repumentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology.

Roberts¹,

Harms²,

Smith³

et al. 2006

Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regarding personality-performance relationships, effect sizes (correlations) were small, though not out of line with the magnitudes of relationships often found in field studies (Anderson & Bushman, 2002;Hemphill, 2003;Hogan & Blake, 1996;Hough & Schneider, 1996;Meyer et al, 2001). Yet effect size is only part of the story.…”

Section: Strengths Limitations and Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Multiple Personality Domains in Relation to Occupational Choice and Performance Among Established Teachers

Emmerich

Rock

Trapani

2004

ETS Research Report Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does personality impact differently on occupational choice and occupational performance? In a study of established teachers, interests, the Five-Factor Model, and attributions were examined in relation to occupational choice and performance. Attributions were assessed using a new instrument designed for teachers. Choice of teaching specialty was found to be most strongly associated with interest in the arts and sciences, openness to experience, and internal attributions in response to a positive classroom event. On the other hand, quality of teaching assessed by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) was associated (negatively) with business interests and with a tendency to externalize blame in response to a problematic teaching situation. Study findings suggested the hypothesis that broad traits located relatively high in a personality hierarchy influence trait matching in selecting an occupation, whereas more specific motivational/dynamic factors located lower in the personality hierarchy influence performance

show abstract

“…These differences are somewhat small in magnitude, which means that sample size (and resulting statistical power) must be large in order to detect them if one relies on null-hypothesis statistical testing (Fraley & Marks, 2007). That said, even small effects that are consistently observed may be meaningful; whether an effect is meaningful or not depends on the context and outcome (Meyer et al, 2001). In light of the available data, it does not appear that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that people are insensitive to how Gettier cases of this type differ from control cases.…”

Section: The Contrast Between Apparent and Authentic Evidencementioning

confidence: 97%

Authentic Gettier cases: A reply to Starmans and Friedman

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do laypeople and philosophers differ in their attributions of knowledge? Starmans and Friedman maintain that laypeople differ from philosophers in taking 'authentic evidence' Gettier cases to be cases of knowledge. Their reply helpfully clarifies the distinction between 'authentic evidence' and 'apparent evidence'. Using their sharpened presentation of this distinction, we contend that the argument of our original paper still stands.We would like to thank Starmans and Friedman (this issue) for their careful reading of our paper and for opening up a broader discussion regarding how some of the divergent findings that have emerged in this area might be reconciled. It is important to recognize that we all agree on a core point: both philosophers and laypeople take some Gettier cases to exemplify justified true belief without knowledge. Where we appear to differ is on the question of whether laypeople respond differently to a special subset of these cases. Starmans and Friedman maintain that 'authentic evidence' Gettier cases are seen as cases of knowledge by laypeople but not by philosophers, whereas our data do not support this assertion (Nagel, San Juan, & Mar, this issue). In their reply to our article, Starmans and Friedman raise three concerns: (1) we misconstrued their contrast between authentic and apparent evidence, (2) the authentic evidence cases we used were atypical of Gettier cases in general; and (3) our methods of questioning biased participants to deny knowledge. These three concerns are potentially quite damning and we are grateful for the opportunity to address them here. On the first point, we appreciate the clarification provided by

show abstract

Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues.

Cited by 1,152 publications

References 427 publications

Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology.

Using Multiple Methods in Personality Psychology.

Multiple Personality Domains in Relation to Occupational Choice and Performance Among Established Teachers

Authentic Gettier cases: A reply to Starmans and Friedman

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About