Progress and problems in the measurement of individual differences in on-the-job performance

Schultz, Douglas G.; Siegel, Arthur I.

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(63)90045-3

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dunnette (1976) and Guion (1976) both underscored the need for applying the scientific attitude to applied domains to develop explanations for work behavior and enhance prediction. Reviews by Ronan and Prien (1966) and Schultz and Siegel (1963) assessed progress in criterion measurement and understanding. Schmidt and Kaplan (1971) reviewed the controversy over the use of a composite criterion versus multiple criteria, stressing that the purposes of measurement could differ and thus make one or the other appropriate.…”

Section: –1979mentioning

confidence: 99%

The criterion problem: 1917–1992.

Austin¹,

Villanova²

1992

Journal of Applied Psychology

341

231

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals differ on multiple aspects of their job-role behavior; criteria are measures that attempt to capture these differences. Measures of criteria are used by several constituencies within applied psychology. Among them, researchers used criteria for the evaluation of theories of work behavior, the effective administration of human resources and the provision of feedback to individuals. One index of the importance of criteria is the observation that most, if not all, of the pioneers of industrial-organizational psychology addressed this issue during their careers. This article reviews conceptual and methodological developments pertaining to the criterion problem since 1917, using as an organizing device dimensions, methods of measurement and analysis, and categorizing frameworks. A shift away from an emphasis on brute prediction toward a balanced treatment of both empirical and conceptual issues is highlighted by calls for the validation of criteria and by increased attention to modeling performance, as well as a recognition of multiple perspectives and competing values from which to view performance and criterion measurement.People in organizations behave according to their role perceptions and the roles assigned to them by others. The resulting behaviors and associated outputs, which are often limited by situations (Viteles, 1925(Viteles, -1926b and may vary widely across individuals (Tiffin, 1942;Viteles, 1932), form a large part of the subject matter of industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. Individual variability on criterion measures interests researchers and managers, who attempt to measure and influence it. Because criteria are essential for evaluation of individuals, programs, and organizational interventions (Schmitt & Klimoski, 1991), the practical significance of criterion measurement has been recognized since the beginning of industrial psychology (Munsterberg, 1913;Scott, 1917). However, the systematic study of criteria per se to expand scientific knowledge This article is dedicated to Robert L. Thorndike, 1910Thorndike, -1990, who made monumental contributions to the study of criteria during his long career at Teachers College, Columbia University. Both authors contributed equally to the preparation of this article.We thank the following individuals, who critically and constructively commented on earlier versions of this article:

show abstract

Section: –1979mentioning

confidence: 99%

The criterion problem: 1917–1992.

Austin¹,

Villanova²

1992

Journal of Applied Psychology

341

231

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the more evident facts about job performance criteria is that characteristically they are complex and multidimensional. A recent survey (Schultz & Siegel, 1963) suggested that the issues involved in this fact constitute one of the potentially most fruitful areas for further research in criterion development. In this frame of reference, two converging lines of progress led to the work described here.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%