Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T21:47:46.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Content-Related Evidence Useful in Validating Selection Tests?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Kevin R. Murphy
Kevin R. Murphy*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, Moore Bldg., University Park, PA 16802.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 12 papers commenting on K. R. Murphy (2009a) raise a number of important issues, most of which can be subsumed in one of four themes. First, papers examining content-oriented validation strategies are still necessary and useful, in part because of the frequent use of these strategies in the practice of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology. Second, the term “content validity” means many different things both within and beyond the field of I–O psychology, and it is useful to understand what sorts of inferences examinations of test content do and do not support. Third, these 12 papers present very little evidence that content validation, as typically carried out by I–O psychologists, actually provides information about the likelihood that people who do well on the test will do well on the job. Finally, I believe that the best use of content-related evidence in validating selection tests is in developing hypotheses about relationships between test scores and criteria rather than in testing these hypotheses.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 517 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In Wainer, H. & Braun, H. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 19–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Binning, J. F., & LeBreton, J. M. (2009). Coherent conceptualization is useful for many things, and understanding validity is one of them. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 486–492.Google Scholar
Burns, W. C. (1996). Content validity, face validity, and quantitative face validity. In Barrett, R. (Ed.), Fair employment strategies in human resource management (pp. 38–46). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F. (1998). Applied psychology in human resource management (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Davison, H. K., & Bing, M. N. (2009). Content validity does matter for the criterion-related validity of personality tests. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 500–502.Google Scholar
Fleishman, E. A., & Mumford, M. D. (1991). Evaluating classifications of job behavior: A construct validation of ability requirement scales. Personnel Psychology, 44, 523–575.Google Scholar
Goldstein, I. L., & Zedeck, S. (1996). Content validation. In Barrett, R. (Ed.), Fair employment strategies in human resource management (pp. 27–37). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
Goldstein, I. L., & Zedeck, S. (2009). Content validity and Murphy's angst. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 495–495.Google Scholar
Goldstein, I. L., Zedeck, S., & Schneider, B. (1993). An exploration of the job analysis-content validity process. In Schmitt, N. & Borman, W. C. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 3–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1977). Content validity–The source of my discontent. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 1–10.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1978a). “Content validity” in moderation. Personal Psychology, 31, 205–213.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1978b). Scoring content domain samples: The problem of fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 499–506.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel selection. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (2009). Was this trip necessary? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 465–468.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. J. (1991). Job analysis. In Dunnette, M. & Hough, L. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 71–164). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2009). Tests don't measure jobs: The meaning of content validation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 493–495.Google Scholar
Kim, B. H., & Oswald, F. L. (2009). Clarifying the concept and context of content validation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 496–499.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J. (1987). Stamp collecting versus science: Validation as hypothesis testing. American Psychologist, 41, 1183–1192.Google Scholar
Langenfeld, T. E., & Crocker, L. M. (1994). The evolution of validity theory: Public school testing, the courts, and incompatible interpretations. Educational Assessment, 2, 149–165.Google Scholar
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575.Google Scholar
Lawshe, C. L. (1985). Inferences from personnel tests and their validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 237–238.Google Scholar
Levine, E. L., May, D. M., Ulm, R. A., & Gordon, T. R. (1997). A methodology for developing and validating minimum qualifications (MQs). Personnel Psychology, 50, 1005–1023.Google Scholar
Muchinsky, P. M. (1999). Psychology applied to work (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2009a). Content validation is useful for many things, but validity isn't one of them. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 453–464.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2009b). Validity, validation and values. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 421–461.Google Scholar
Murphy, K., & Davidshofer, C. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles and applications (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., Dzieweczynski, J. L., & Yang, Z. (2009). Positive manifold limits the relevance of content-matching strategies for validating selection test batteries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1018–1031.Google Scholar
Murphy, K., & Saal, F. E. (1990). Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O’Neill, T. A., Goffin, R. D., & Tett, R. P. (2009). Content validation is fundamental for optimizing the criterion validity of personality tests. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 508–512.Google Scholar
Putka, D. J., McCloy, R. A., Ingerick, M., O’Shea, P. G., & Whetzel, D. L. (2009). Links among bases of validation evidence: Absence of empirical evidence is not evidence of absence. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 475–480.Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g . Personnel Psychology, 44, 321–332.Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A., & Teachout, M. S. (1994). Predicting job performance: Not much more than g . Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 518–524.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relationship between measures of typical and maximal job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 482–486.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (1987). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (3rd ed.). College Park, MD: Author.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Author.Google Scholar
Spengler, M., Gelléri, P., & Schuler, H. (2009). The construct behind content validity: New approaches to a better understanding. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 503–507.Google Scholar
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. (1999). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Tan, J. A. (2009). Babies, bathwater, and validity: Content validity is useful in the validation process. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 513–515.Google Scholar
Thornton, G. C. (2009). Evidence of content matching is evidence of validity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 469–474.Google Scholar
Tonowski, R. F. (2009). “Content” still belongs with “validity.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 481–485.Google Scholar
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. (1978). 29 C.F.R. 1607.Google Scholar