Cognitive Tests Used in Selection Can Have Content Validity as Well as Criterion Validity: A Broader Research Review and Implications for Practice

F. Schmidt
{"title":"Cognitive Tests Used in Selection Can Have Content Validity as Well as Criterion Validity: A Broader Research Review and Implications for Practice","authors":"F. Schmidt","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00573.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many industrial/organizational (I/O) psychologists, both academics and practitioners, believe that the content validity model is not appropriate for cognitive ability measures used in personnel selection. They believe that cognitive tests can have criterion validity and construct validity but not content validity. Based on a review of the broader differential psychology research literature on cognitive skills, aptitudes, and abilities, this article demonstrates that with the proper content validity procedures, cognitive ability measures, including, ultimately, some de facto measures of general cognitive ability, can have content validity in addition to criterion and construct validity. Finally, the article considers, critiques, and refutes the specific arguments contending that content validity is inappropriate for use with cognitive skills and abilities. These research facts have implications for I/O practice, professional standards, and legal defensibility of selection programs.","PeriodicalId":259932,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: International Journal of Selection & Assessment","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"35","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley-Blackwell: International Journal of Selection & Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00573.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

Abstract

Many industrial/organizational (I/O) psychologists, both academics and practitioners, believe that the content validity model is not appropriate for cognitive ability measures used in personnel selection. They believe that cognitive tests can have criterion validity and construct validity but not content validity. Based on a review of the broader differential psychology research literature on cognitive skills, aptitudes, and abilities, this article demonstrates that with the proper content validity procedures, cognitive ability measures, including, ultimately, some de facto measures of general cognitive ability, can have content validity in addition to criterion and construct validity. Finally, the article considers, critiques, and refutes the specific arguments contending that content validity is inappropriate for use with cognitive skills and abilities. These research facts have implications for I/O practice, professional standards, and legal defensibility of selection programs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在选择中使用的认知测试可以有内容效度和标准效度:一个更广泛的研究综述和实践意义
许多工业/组织(I/O)心理学家,无论是学者还是从业者,都认为内容效度模型不适合用于人员选择的认知能力测量。他们认为认知测验有标准效度和构念效度,但没有内容效度。本文在回顾了有关认知技能、能力倾向和能力的差异心理学研究文献的基础上,论证了在适当的内容效度程序下,认知能力测量,包括一些一般认知能力的事实上的测量,除了标准效度和构念效度之外,还可以具有内容效度。最后,本文考虑、批评和反驳了认为内容效度不适合用于认知技能和能力的具体论点。这些研究事实对I/O实践、专业标准和选择程序的法律可辩护性都有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Dual Relational Model of Perceived Overqualification: Employee's Self‐Concept and Task Performance Does Interview Anxiety Predict Job Performance and Does it Influence the Predictive Validity of Interviews? Affective Responses to Abuse in the Workplace: The Role of Hope and Affective Commitment Generalization of Cognitive and Noncognitive Validities Across Personality‐Based Job Families Video�?Based Testing: A High�?Fidelity Job Simulation that Demonstrates Reliability, Validity, and Utility
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1