Hidden Agendas and the Learning-Earning Controversy: A Reply to Robert J. Nash and Kenneth P. Saurman

Student personnel administrators have a vital role to play in the university as facilitators and counselors, but they should not attempt to be “comprehensivists” or “meaning makers.” The Nash-Saurman emphasis on such roles, and on “personal meaning” in higher education, misrepresents the activities of faculty members and the primary mission of the university and invites continued dilution of academic rigor. Such emphases also reflect a continuation of, rather than a break with, the marketplace mentality in higher education and constitute a politically self-serving position on the part of professional educators.     

Assessing the likelihood of reliable workplace behavior: further contributions to the validation of the Employee Reliability Inventory.

This paper summarizes a number of studies in which the validity of the Employee Reliability Inventory, a preemployment screening instrument designed to assess the likelihood of reliable and productive workplace behavior, was examined. Criterion-related studies compared the scores of a broadly diverse group of job applicants with those obtained from an array of criterion and comparison groups, for whom there was documented evidence of reliable or unreliable behavior. Criterion-related evidence indicates that the six scales are effective in differentiating a variety of criterion groups with unreliable behavior from a number of different job applicant comparison groups. Construct-related evidence for the validity of an emotional adjustment scale is reported as well. The issue of response distortion in preemployment inventories is discussed, and data are reported which indicate that scores on all six scales appear to be functionally free from the potentially confounding effects of response distortion. These results are consistent with the original validation and cross-validation findings, which supported the validity of the six scales when assessing the likelihood of reliable behavior in a population of job applicants.     

Reply to William R. Ferrell's paper "Calibration of sensory and cognitive judgments: A single model for both"

William R. Ferrell's paper is a reply to our article "Calibration of sensory and cognitive judgments: Two different accounts", 1993, 34, 135–148 in this journal. Ferrell's critique centres around three issues: (1) The model of sensory discrimination proposed by Björkman et al. (1993) and discussed in Winman and Juslin (1993) is not new, (2) this model does not predict underconfidence, (3) there is no need for separate models of calibration of sensory and cognitive judgments. Below we respond to each of the three issues raised by Ferrell.