The Predictive Validity of a Work Sample: A Laboratory Study

Mount, Michael K.; Muchinsky, Paul M.; Hanser, Lawrence M.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb02332.x

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also of interest was the finding that previous levels of formal education were related to verbal scores, whereas the hands-on part of the criterion was independent of education and, to some extent, relatively “culture-free” (Smith, 1991). Generally speaking, our results are in line with previous research concerning trainability testing, which suggest that this type of test can have high predictive validity (Robertson & Downs, 1979; Robertson & Kandola, 1989; Aramburu-Zabala, 2001a), and high reliability (Mount, Muchinsky & Hanser, 1977), even if validity tends to attenuate over time (Robertson & Kandola, 1989).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Validation of a Trainability Test for Young Apprentices

Higuera

Riera²

2004

European Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predictive test validation data were collected to analyze the usefulness of a content-valid trainability test of carpentry for predicting success at a full-scale course. Results supported the effectiveness of the standardized test CAR-1 to predict the individual job-learning potential in a sample of 109 young unemployed persons. Several advantages of structured trainability tests as predictors of job learning are indicated. These include greater standardization, the content and predictive validity, and the possibility of assessing the potential of candidates with no prior experience. The high and significant coefficients obtained in this study suggest that the trainability testing methodology may provide useful guidelines for developing job learning predictors in other areas of vocational training.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Validation of a Trainability Test for Young Apprentices

Higuera

Riera²

2004

European Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, studies had to report data from participants who were either actual job applicants or incumbents employed in the job in question. This led us to exclude studies that used a work sample test within a laboratory experiment as either the performance task (e.g., Mount, Muchinsky, & Hanser, 1977; Pritchard, Hollenbeck, & DeLeo, 1980) or as a taped stimulus (e.g., Highhouse & Gallo, 1997). In addition, we excluded studies that focused on training the chronically underemployed or mentally ill (e.g., Franze & Ferrari, 2002), rehabilitating individuals with substance abuse problems such as drug use (e.g., Perone, DeWaard, & Baron, 1979), physical therapy rehabilitation (e.g., Callahan, 1993), and prison inmates (e.g., Grigg, 1948).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta‐analysis of Work Sample Test Validity: Updating and Integrating Some Classic Literature

Roth¹,

Bobko²,

McFarland³

2005

Personnel Psychology

142

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Work sample tests have been used in applied psychology for decades as important predictors of job performance, and they have been suggested to be among the most valid predictors of job performance. As we examined classic work sample literature, we found the narrative review by Asher and Sciarrino (1974) to be plagued by many methodological problems. Further, it is possible that data used in this study may have influenced the results (e.g., r = .54) reported by Hunter and Hunter in their seminal work in 1984. After integrating all of the relevant data, we found an observed mean correlation between work sample tests and measures of job performance of .26. This value increased to .33 when measures of job performance (e.g., supervisory ratings) were corrected for attenuation. Our results suggest that the level of the validity for work sample tests may not be as large as previously thought (i.e., approximately one third less than previously thought). Further, our work also summarizes the relationship of work sample exams to measures of general cognitive ability. We found that work sample tests were associated with an observed correlation of .32 with tests of general cognitive ability.

show abstract

“…A review (101) of selection studies (both published and unpublished) done on nonexempt jobs in the petroleum industry also showed high mean validities for work samples and job knowledge measures. In specifi c studies, Campion (56) fo und much higher concurrent validities for a work sample than fo r paper-and-pencil tests for the job of maintenance mechanic; Gordon & Kleiman (128a) found that the predictive validity fo r a work sample given to police recruits was better than the validity of an ability test; and, in a "lab" study (228), work samples were better than ability tests in refl ecting students' performance levels on the "job" of build ing things with erector set materials.…”

Section: Job Sa Mplesmentioning

confidence: 98%