Confessions, scapegoats and flying pigs: Psychometric testing and the law

Orientation: Publishing methodologically sound, empirically based studies in reputable accredited scientific journals are essential in order to advance knowledge and evidence-based practice in the field of industrial and organisational psychology.Research purpose: The purpose of the research was to conduct a broad content analysis of the articles published in the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP) between 2004 and 2013. The study aimed to provide a descriptive overview of the most frequent content themes,published authors and institutions, research approaches, strategies, designs and analysis techniques, software packages and sample sizes in industrial and organisational (I-O) psychology utilised in the publications.Motivation for study: The periodic analyses of published content in scholarly journals provide an index of the extent to which the publications reflect the scope of practice in a given discipline and broaden insight into the direction and relevance of research published in a journal.Research design, approach and method: A broad systematic content analysis was conducted of 342 documented articles published in the SAJIP between 2004 and 2013. Descriptive data(frequencies and percentages) were used to report the findings.Main findings: The publishing pattern of the SAJIP appeared to correspond with its focus and scope. Manuscripts utilising mostly cross-sectional quantitative correlational research designs with large samples (n > 201) were published in the SAJIP. The University of Johannesburg and Professor Sebastiaan (Ian) Rothmann were the largest contributors to publications between 2004 and 2013. Organisational psychology and psychometrics were the most prominent domains in I-O psychology research. Data were predominantly processed utilising SPSS.Practical implications: The insights derived from the findings can be employed to plan future research initiatives in the field of I-O psychology.Contribution/value-add: The findings provide valuable insight into the current status of the foci of I-O psychology research as published in the SAJIP between 2004 and 2013 and the contribution made by the SAJIP to advancing knowledge and evidence-based practice in I-O psychology.

Section: Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

A review of a decade’s scholarly publications (2004–2013) in the <i>South African Journal of Industrial Psychology</i>

Coetzee

Zyl

2014

“…The criterion distributions of the two groups coincided perfectly, whereas the predictor distributions differed significantly in terms of location only. An illustration such as this (Theron, 2007), based on the analysis of a single data set characterised in terms of a specific set of selection parameters, although relevant, does not provide sufficiently convincing evidence in support of the argument that adverse impact in criterion-referenced personnel selection cannot be avoided by the judicious choice of selection instruments.…”

Section: Research Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 95%

“…This type of unfair/discriminatory adverse impact can be avoided, however, by eliminating the systematic, group-related prediction error. Theron (2007) attempted to illustrate the foregoing argument by analysing a fictitious data set (N = 200), comprising a normally distributed criterion systematically related to a normally distributed predictor. One half of the observations was obtained from members of a protected group, with the other half being obtained from members of a non-protected group.…”

Section: Research Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the criterion inferences are valid, the difference in the means of the marginal group-specific distributions of clinically derived criterion inferences should reflect the difference in the means of the marginal group-specific observed criterion distributions (possibly expressed in a different metric), but the variance in the distributions of clinically derived criterion inferences would be smaller than in the observed criterion distributions (when scaled in the same metric), to the extent that the predictive validity of the clinical criterion inferences would be less than unity. Whether the clinical mind can take account of group differences in predictor and criterion distributions in a manner that would allow for the derivation of criterion inferences without predictive bias is, however, debatable (Theron, 2007).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The diversity-validity dilemma: In search of minimum adverse impact and maximum utility.

Theron

2009

Self Cite

Selection from diverse groups of applicants poses the formidable challenge of developing valid selection procedures that simultaneously add value, do not discriminate unfairly and which minimise adverse impact. Valid selection procedures used in a fair, non-discriminatory manner that optimises utility, however, very often result in adverse impact against members of protected groups. More often than not, the assessment techniques used for selection are blamed for this. The conventional interpretation of adverse impact results in an erroneous diagnosis of the fundamental causes of the under-representation of protected group members and, consequently, in an inappropriate treatment of the problem.

“…Practical selection decisions use criterion inferences as bases. One derives them clinically or mechanically from predictor information that is available at the time of the selection decision (Bartram, 2005;Ghiselli, Campbell and Zedeck, 1981;Theron, 2007). The final analysis needs to show that these criterion inferences, on which organisations base their selection decisions, are permissible because they relate systematically to the actual level of job performance that applicants will deliver if organisations appoint them.…”

Section: Background To the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

A preliminary factor analytic investigation into the firstorder factor structure of the Fifteen Factor Plus (15FQ+) on a sample of Black South African managers

Moyo

Theron

2011

Self Cite

Orientation: The Fifteen Factor Questionnaire Plus (15FQ+) is a prominent personality questionnaire that organisations frequently use in personnel selection in South Africa.Research purpose: The primary objective of this study was to undertake a factor analytic investigation of the first-order factor structure of the 15FQ+.Motivation for the study: The construct validity of the 15FQ+, as a measure of personality, is necessary even though it is insufficient to justify its use in personnel selection.Research design, approach and method: The researchers evaluated the fit of the measurement model, which the structure and scoring key of the 15FQ+ implies, in a quantitative study that used an ex post facto correlation design through structural equation modelling. They conducted a secondary data analysis. They selected a sample of 241 Black South African managers from a large 15FQ+ database.Main findings: The researchers found good measurement model fit. The measurement model parameter estimates were worrying. The magnitude of the estimated model parameters suggests that the items generally do not reflect the latent personality dimensions the designers intended them to with a great degree of precision. The items are reasonably noisy measures of the latent variables they represent.Practical/managerial implications: Organisations should use the 15FQ+ carefully on Black South African managers until further local research evidence becomes available.Contribution/value-add: The study is a catalyst to trigger the necessary additional research we need to establish convincingly the psychometric credentials of the 15FQ+ as a valuable assessment tool in South Africa.