在心理测试中,并发效度真的能评估预测效度吗?两项本地研究

IF 4.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Saul Fine
{"title":"在心理测试中,并发效度真的能评估预测效度吗?两项本地研究","authors":"Saul Fine","doi":"10.1111/apps.70001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Concurrent validity designs are used widely in applied psychology as proxy estimates of predictive validity in operational settings, although few primary (local) studies have investigated the generalizability of concurrent validity coefficients empirically. The present study compared the same assessment tool and performance criterion between incumbent and applicant consumer samples from two large financial institutions (<i>N</i> = 2942 and <i>N</i> = 2880), without the common issue of range restriction in the applicant groups. The results found no significant differences in the observed validity coefficients between the groups, despite evidence of impression management in the applicant samples. In addition, range restriction corrections in the concurrent samples would have likely overestimated the predictive validities. Practical implications are briefly discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48289,"journal":{"name":"Applied Psychology-An International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apps.70001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does concurrent validity really estimate predictive validity in psychological testing? Two local studies\",\"authors\":\"Saul Fine\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/apps.70001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Concurrent validity designs are used widely in applied psychology as proxy estimates of predictive validity in operational settings, although few primary (local) studies have investigated the generalizability of concurrent validity coefficients empirically. The present study compared the same assessment tool and performance criterion between incumbent and applicant consumer samples from two large financial institutions (<i>N</i> = 2942 and <i>N</i> = 2880), without the common issue of range restriction in the applicant groups. The results found no significant differences in the observed validity coefficients between the groups, despite evidence of impression management in the applicant samples. In addition, range restriction corrections in the concurrent samples would have likely overestimated the predictive validities. Practical implications are briefly discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Psychology-An International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apps.70001\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Psychology-An International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apps.70001\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Psychology-An International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apps.70001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在应用心理学中,并行效度设计被广泛用作预测效度的代理估计,尽管很少有初步(本地)的研究从经验上调查了并行效度系数的普遍性。本研究比较了来自两家大型金融机构(N = 2942和N = 2880)的在职消费者和申请人消费者样本之间相同的评估工具和绩效标准,没有常见的申请人群体范围限制问题。尽管在申请人样本中存在印象管理的证据,但结果发现各组之间观察到的有效性系数没有显着差异。此外,同步样本的范围限制修正可能会高估预测效度。简要讨论了实际影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does concurrent validity really estimate predictive validity in psychological testing? Two local studies

Concurrent validity designs are used widely in applied psychology as proxy estimates of predictive validity in operational settings, although few primary (local) studies have investigated the generalizability of concurrent validity coefficients empirically. The present study compared the same assessment tool and performance criterion between incumbent and applicant consumer samples from two large financial institutions (N = 2942 and N = 2880), without the common issue of range restriction in the applicant groups. The results found no significant differences in the observed validity coefficients between the groups, despite evidence of impression management in the applicant samples. In addition, range restriction corrections in the concurrent samples would have likely overestimated the predictive validities. Practical implications are briefly discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
84
期刊介绍: "Applied Psychology: An International Review" is the esteemed official journal of the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP), a venerable organization established in 1920 that unites scholars and practitioners in the field of applied psychology. This peer-reviewed journal serves as a global platform for the scholarly exchange of research findings within the diverse domain of applied psychology. The journal embraces a wide array of topics within applied psychology, including organizational, cross-cultural, educational, health, counseling, environmental, traffic, and sport psychology. It particularly encourages submissions that enhance the understanding of psychological processes in various applied settings and studies that explore the impact of different national and cultural contexts on psychological phenomena.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信