2021
DOI: 10.1111/apps.12309
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validity evidence and measurement equivalence for the Dutch translation of the conditional reasoning test for aggression

Abstract: This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 95 publications
(166 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding is promising in the context of the diversity-validity dilemma in personnel selection, that is, using instruments in selection that have high predictive validity and show small ethnic subgroup score differences (De Soete et al, 2012). Following the empirical investigation of cultural differences in other popular implicit instruments such as the thematic apperception test (TAT; Hofer & Chasiotis, 2022), the implicit association test (IAT; Falk et al, 2015), and the conditional reasoning test (CRT; Galić et al, 2014;LeBreton et al, 2022), future research needs to further investigate the cross-cultural validity of the NJT-H.…”
Section: Strengths Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This finding is promising in the context of the diversity-validity dilemma in personnel selection, that is, using instruments in selection that have high predictive validity and show small ethnic subgroup score differences (De Soete et al, 2012). Following the empirical investigation of cultural differences in other popular implicit instruments such as the thematic apperception test (TAT; Hofer & Chasiotis, 2022), the implicit association test (IAT; Falk et al, 2015), and the conditional reasoning test (CRT; Galić et al, 2014;LeBreton et al, 2022), future research needs to further investigate the cross-cultural validity of the NJT-H.…”
Section: Strengths Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%