Problem-Solving Training as Prevention with College Students

Problem-solving processes play an important role within remedial and human effectiveness models of development. This article discusses the use of preventive problem-solving training with college students.     

ARE WE GETTING FOOLED AGAIN? COMING TO TERMS WITH LIMITATIONS IN THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS FOR PERSONNEL SELECTION

We recently published an article in which we highlighted a number of issues associated with the use of self-report personality tests in personnel selection contexts ( Morgeson et al., 2007 ). Both Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, and Judge (2007) and Tett and Christiansen (2007) have written responses to this article. In our response to these articles we address many of the issues raised by Ones et al. and Tett and Christiansen. In addition to a detailed response, we make the following 4 key points: (1) Our criticisms of personality testing apply only to the selection context, not to all research on personality; (2) the observed validities of personality tests predicting job performance criteria are low and have not changed much over time; (3) when evaluating the usefulness of using personality tests to select applicants, one must not ignore the observed, uncorrected validity; and (4) when discussing the value of personality tests for selection contexts, the most important criteria are those that reflect job performance. Implications for personality testing research and practice are discussed.     

EXPERIENCE-BASED AND SITUATIONAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: STUDIES OF VALIDITY

This research compared the validity of two different types of structured interview questions (i.e., experience-based and situational) under tightly controlled conditions. The experience-based interview questions required that 108 study participants relate how they had handled situations in the past requiring skills and abilities necessary for effective performance on the job. Situational questions, administered to another group of 108 study participants, provided interviewees with hypothetical job-relevant situations and asked them how they would respond if they were confronted with these problems. The experience-based interview questions yielded higher levels of validity than the situational questions. Additional analyses showed that the interview added incrementally to the prediction of performance beyond the variance accounted for by a cognitive ability test. There were small differences in subgroup performance (White, Black, Hispanic, male, and female) on the experience-based interview, though it was equally valid for all subgroups.     

METAANALYSES OF VALIDITY STUDIES PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1964 AND 1982 AND THE INVESTIGATION OF STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

Review and metaanalyses of published validation studies for the years 1964-1982 of Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology were undertaken to examine the effect of (1) research design; (2) criterion used; (3) type of selection instrument used; (4) occupational group studies; and (5) predictor-criterion combination on the level of observed validity coefficients. Results indicate that concurrent validation designs produce validity coefficients roughly equivalent to those obtained in predictive validation designs and that both of these designs produce higher validity coefficients than does a predictive design which includes use of the selection instrument. Of the criteria examined, performance rating criteria generally produced lower validity coefficients than did the use of other more "objective" criteria. In comparing the validities of various types of predictors, it was found cognitive ability tests were not superior to other predictors such as assessment centers, work samples, and supervisory/peer evaluations as has been found in previous metaanalytic work. Personality measures were clearly less valid. Compared to previous validity generalization work, much unexplained variance in validity coefficients remained after corrections for differences in sample size. Finally, the studies reviewed were deficient for our purposes with respect to the data reported. Selection ratios, standard deviations, reliabilities, predictor and criterion intercorrelations were rarely and inconsistently reported. There are also many predictor-criterion relationships for which very few validation efforts have been undertaken.     

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN INTERVIEWER RATINGS: THE IMPACT OF STANDARDIZATION, CONSENSUS DISCUSSION, AND SAMPLING ERROR ON THE VALIDITY OF A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

This research investigated empirical issues regarding the validity of individual interviewers'( N = 62) ratings collected after a structured interview. Each interviewer rated an average of 25 interviewees. One hypothesis examined but not supported was that systematic interviewer errors will attenuate interview validity when data are aggregated across interviewers. Also investigated was the validity of ratings averaged across interviewers compared to consensus ratings; consensus ratings were shown to have significantly but probably not practically higher validities. Third, a meta-analysis of individual interviewer validities revealed that all of the variance in validities could be attributed to sampling error. Results and implications are discussed.     

Comments on Ruth Ginzberg's Paper

Ruth Ginzberg has proposed a model for a gynocentric science that might constitute a paradigm as described by Kuhn. The author argues that Ginzberg's model lacks certain essential features of paradigms as described by Kuhn. The differences may stem from more fundamental disagreements between them, including the possibility that some essential features of Ginzberg's gynocentric science place it outside the intended scope of Kuhn's analysis.     

ITEM BIAS INDICES BASED ON TOTAL TEST SCORE AND JOB PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES OF ABILITY

Researchers (e.g., Ironson, 1982; Tenopyr, 1990) have suggested that item bias investigators equate subgroups on external criteria such as job performance rather than total test scores before considering subgroup passing rates on test items. In a study comparing these two approaches to studies of item bias, we found little evidence of bias using total test score as the estimate of overall examinee ability, but nearly all items were biased in comparisons of white and African-American subgroups on Numerical, Verbal, and Mechanical Reasoning tests and in male-female comparisons on a Mechanical Reasoning test when job performance was used to select "equally able" examinees. However, the use of job performance as the ability index is analogous to performance-based approaches to test bias (Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989; Thorndike, 1971) and directly equivalent to the Darlington (1971) and Cole (1973) test bias definition, the logical inconsistencies of which have been previously described (Hunter & Schmidt, 1976; Peterson & Novick, 1976). We conclude that performance matching as a basis of forming "equal ability" groups is inappropriate.