Infinite sample-size tests revealed that the Schmidt and Hunter validity generalization procedure underestimates situational variance. A new multiplicative model was developed. The independent version of the multiplicative model was found to be conservative in that the variance of true validities was consistently overestimated. Overall, the results indicate that the multiplicative model provides good accuracy without risking overgeneralization. A retrospective analysis showed that part of the reason for the inaccuracy of the Schmidt-Hunter procedure was that the estimation equation was mathematically incorrect. Subsequent modifications of the estimation equation and the more recent computational procedures employed by Schmidt, Hunter, Pearlman, and Shane; by Pearlman, Schmidt, and Hunter; and by Schmidt, Gast-Rosenberg, and Hunter are also discussed. When applied to three test cases, it was found that the Schmidt, Hunter, Pearlman, and Shane method was substantially more accurate than the original Schmidt-Hunter method but still erred somewhat by underestimating the variance of true validities in all instances with imperfect criterion reliabilities. The most recent Schmidt independent procedure was found to give underestimates in some cases and overestimates in others. A new Schmidt dependent model was found to consistently yield conservative overestimates of variance and was only slightly less accurate than the independent multiplicative model. Extrapolating from these results, we infer that the variance estimates given in Schmidt, Hunter, Pearlman, and Shane may underestimate the true validity variance slightly; those in Schmidt, Gast-Rosenberg, and Hunter and Pearlman, Schmidt, and Hunter probably exceed actual variance slightly.Requests for reprints should be sent to John C. __j IT,,_(.~_ _«:,,t~,j -,,* tkot ™,,^v, o«^ ",-.£, Callender, who is now at the Department of Personnel *£ H " nte 5 P°m' ed OUt *at much and pOS-Administration, Procter and Gamble Company, P.O. slbl V a11 of the between-Study variation in Box 599, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201.observed validity coefficients may be arti-

This research examined behavioral styles used by interviewers to confirm their first impressions of job applicants. Three interviewers in a corporate setting formed first impressions based on application blank and test score information. They then conducted audiotaped interviews. Coders independently coded 79 interviews and found that first impressions were related to confirmatory behavior. Interviewers followed up positive first impressions, for example, by showing positive regard toward applicants, "selling" the company and giving job information, and gathering less information. Applicants' communication style and rapport with interviewers also differed. Significant differences in confirmatory behaviors also occurred among the three interviewers. A number of interviewer behaviors, especially positive regard, were related to applicant behavior in interviews. Although previous studies of expectancy confirmation have produced mixed results, our results suggest that interviewers in natural settings do use confirmatory strategies, underscoring the importance of additional research on "self-fulfilling prophecies."

An information-processing perspective is adopted for analyzing the judgments of individual employment interviewers in a corporate setting. Linear policy capturing equations were estimated from three interviewers' ratings of 120 job applicants in live and audiotaped interviews. The equations were evaluated across interviewers to identify sources of predictive validity and consistency in information use. In competition with the interviewers from whom they were derived, regression models displayed higher predictive validities in a majority of instances. Following training on selected rating dimensions, interviewers' predictive validities improved. In addition, after interviewer training the regression models of the training dimensions yielded higher predictive validities than all three interviewers. The results suggest specific directions for enhancing the effectiveness of interviewing in the employee selection process.

Researchers are invited to contribute to a special section on applications of structural equations analysis in clinical research. Of particular interest are articles that describe and illustrate the application of structural equations analysis to one or more of the following research problems: (a) repeated measures and longitudinal designs, (b) interactive effects of latent variables, (c) tests of nonlinear relations, (d) tests of mediation, (e) confirmatory factor analysis of measures of complex symptoms and traits, (f) tests of invariance of measurement and structural models, and (g) analyses of small-sample data. Authors should identify the specific clinical research problem they intend to address, provide a clear rationale for using structural equations analysis rather than more traditional statistical models, and provide one or more empirical examples that illustrate the design, analysis, and interpretation of structural models. Authors should convey their arguments in nontechnical language, with the primary goal of making apparent the potential contribution of structural equations analysis to clinical research and theory. The editor of this special section is Rick H. Hoyle, University of Kentucky. Authors should submit outlines of articles by June 1, 1992, to

This study, using Monte Carlo simulation techmques, evaluated the statistical power of the Callender-Osburn method for testing the situational specificity hypothesis in validity generalization studies. In addition, the Schmidt-Hunter 75% rule for testing the situational specificity hypothesis was studied with regard to its sensitivity for detecting both Type I and Type II errors The results showed that both the Callender-Osburn procedure and the Schmidt-Hunter 75% rule lacked sufficient statistical power to detect low-to-moderate true validity variance when sample size was below 100 In addition, it was found that in some situations the power of the Schmidt-Hunter 75% rule actually decreased as the number of studies increased. The implications of these results for interpretation of validity generalization studies are discussed