Consistency of performance under stable conditions of work.

114

Meta‐analyses of validity coefficients from tests of clerical abilities for five criteria—supervisor ratings, supervisor rankings, work samples, production quantity, and production quality—were conducted, and the resulting expected true validities were compared. Ratings, rankings, work samples, and production quantity all resulted in high test validities. Validities resulting from ratings and quantity‐of‐production criteria were highly similar across tests. Validities resulting from rankings and work samples were on the average higher than those from ratings and quantity of production. The fifth criterion, quality of production, had low predictability and did not generalize across situations.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Criteria for Test Validation: A Meta‐analytic Investigation

Nathan

Alexander

1988

114

“…Time-based fluctuations in the salesvolumes as large as 100% of average weekly business and the use of a correction formula were cited by Barrett et al The corrected odd-even correlation between weekly productivity figures was approximately .96 (Brown & Ghiselli, 1953, p. 437). Also, in discussing some weaknesses of the Bass (1962) study, Barrett et al referred to a study of productivity over time by Rambo et al (1983) to justify some of their conclusions. In one statement, Barrett et al argued that, "Since no correction for autocorrelation was applied, it is possible that most of this change, as well as the validity change, could be accounted for by random error in the criterion" (1985, p. 45).…”

Section: Barrett Caldwell and Alexander's Second Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We should state at the outset that we believe the assumption of static criteria is not justified. Support for the changing nature of a wide array of criteria exists in educational psychology (e.g., Humphreys, 1968;Wilson, 1983), organizational psychology (e.g., Alvares & H u h , 1973;Ghiselli & Haire, 1960;Henry & Hulin, 1987, 1989Inn, H u h , & Tucker, 1972;MacKinney, 1967;Rambo, Chomiak, & Price, 1983), and experimental psychology (e.g., Adams, 1987;Alvares & H u h , 1972;Dunham, 1974). These findings are not reviewed here, although some relevant results along a temporal dimension for two classes, predictive validation and developmental/ growth studies, were aggregated for a quantitative analysis by H u h , Henry, and Noon (in press).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Austin

Humphreys

Hulin

1989

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.

“…Rothe, 1978). Recently, Rambo, Chomiak, and Price (1983) found that temporal distance between two measures of output rate further attenuates computed stability coefficients. The objective measures used in the present study summarized a reporting period of six months duration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐appraisal Based Upon Supervisory Feedback

Steel¹,

Ovalle²

1984

Self‐appraisals of job performance have historically proven to be weakly related to appraisals conducted by supervisory personnel. Two studies sought to facilitate rater agreement by invoking supervisory performance feedback as a frame of reference for subordinate raters. In the first study, a sample of 401 branch managers from a large lending institution performed a conventional self‐appraisal and an appraisal containing instructions referencing supervisory feedback (Feedback Based Self‐Appraisal). Feedback Based Self‐Appraisals exhibited significantly smaller leniency error, greater total rating variance, and more agreement with superior ratings than conventional self‐appraisals. FBSAs produced small improvements over conventional self‐appraisals in predicting objective criteria of managerial job performance. Study 2 examined FBSA‐supervisory appraisal agreement for two samples of military organization personnel. The relative degree of feedback available in a work environment was found to moderate FBSA‐superior agreement.