The validity of validity: An analysis of validation study designs.

Sussmann, Mario; Robertson, Donald

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.461

Cited by 34 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In conclusion, investigators will find quasi-simplex matrices if they use appropriate designs (cf. Guion & Cranny, 1982;Sussman & Robertson, 1986) and statistically valid analyses (cf. Austin, 1987;Cook & Campbell, 1979).…”

Section: Barrett Caldwell and Alexander's Third Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Another View of Dynamic Criteria: A Critical Reanalysis of Barrett, Caldwell, and Alexander

Austin

Humphreys

Hulin

1989

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue a divergent perspective from that taken by Barrett, Caldwell, and Alexander (1985) in a critical reanalysis of the evidence for dynamic criteria. Those authors distinguished three definitions of the dynamic criterion phenomenon and concluded, on the basis of secondary analyses of several sets of published data, that dynamic criteria do not exist. Moreover, they concluded that most of the temporal changes in criteria reported in those data sets could be explained by methodological artifacts. In several cases these artifacts were listed in summary form, without a complete consideration of the implications of invoking these artifacts as post hoc explanations. The purpose of this comment is to clarify the debate on dynamic criteria by critiquing the Barrett et al. study. We suggest that a fruitful solution to the problem may lie in trying to understand criteria per se rather than searching for artifacts.

show abstract

Section: Barrett Caldwell and Alexander's Third Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Another View of Dynamic Criteria: A Critical Reanalysis of Barrett, Caldwell, and Alexander

Austin

Humphreys

Hulin

1989

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Potential changes in validity coefficients have an impact on the expected utility of selection systems. In personnel selection as well as academic admissions, although we aim to predict criteria of interest (typically performance) over a relatively long duration, the time spans over which criteria are gathered for validation studies most often reflect practical considerations (Sussmann & Robertson, 1986). In predictive studies, the time periods selected for gathering criterion data rarely exceed a year or two-in most cases they are merely a few months.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality scale validities increase throughout medical school.

Lievens

Ones

Dilchert

2009

Journal of Applied Psychology

190

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Admissions and personnel decisions rely on stable predictor-criterion relationships. The authors studied the validity of Big Five personality factors and their facets for predicting academic performance in medical school across multiple years, investigating whether criterion-related validities change over time. In this longitudinal investigation, an entire European country's 1997 cohort of medical students was studied throughout their medical school career (Year 1, N ϭ 627; Year 7, N ϭ 306). Over time, extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness factor and facet scale scores showed increases in operational validity for predicting grade point averages. Although there may not be any advantages to being open and extraverted for early academic performance, these traits gain importance for later academic performance when applied practice increasingly plays a part in the curriculum. Conscientiousness, perhaps more than any other personality trait, appears to be an increasing asset for medical students: Operational validities of conscientiousness increased from .18 to .45. In assessing the utility of personality measures, relying on early criteria might underestimate the predictive value of personality variables. Implications for personality measures to predict work performance are discussed.

show abstract

“…Barrett, Phillips, and Alexander (1981, p. 5) attempted to counteract the "received doctrine" that predictive validity was superior to concurrent validation. Despite the evidence (Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984), some still believe in the natural superiority of predictive validity (Guion & Cranny, 1982;Messick, 1989;Sussmann & Robertson, 1986).…”

Section: Fifth Wonder: Predictive Validity As the One Best Validationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For example, Sussmann and Robertson (1986) stated, "If the construct is considered an aptitude predictive of future behavior (e.g., job performance after a training program), logically only a predictive validation design should be used" (p. 465). This is not an adequate representation of either construct validity or logic.…”

Section: Fifth Wonder: Predictive Validity As the One Best Validationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clarifying Construct Validity: Definitions, Processes, and Models

Barrett¹

1992

Human Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The validity of validity: An analysis of validation study designs.

Cited by 34 publications

References 24 publications

Another View of Dynamic Criteria: A Critical Reanalysis of Barrett, Caldwell, and Alexander

Another View of Dynamic Criteria: A Critical Reanalysis of Barrett, Caldwell, and Alexander

Personality scale validities increase throughout medical school.

Clarifying Construct Validity: Definitions, Processes, and Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About