Content Validity and Cognitive Tests: Response to Kehoe (), Ployhart (), and Sackett ()

The most important fact emerging from the combination of my article and the three commentaries is the consensus judgment that content validity is appropriate scientifically and professionally for use with tests of specific cognitive skills used in job performance. This is important because the 1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures have typically been interpreted as not permitting such usage, and this is particularly the case in the interpretation given to the Guidelines by federal government enforcement agencies. Although the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Principles and the Standards do not prohibit such usage, many industrial–organizational psychologists believe that it is not professionally or scientifically appropriate to employ content validity methods with cognitive measures. The hope is that this series will convince them otherwise. On this point, all four authors in the series are in agreement. The major disagreement among us concerns whether specific cognitive skills used in content valid tests must be considered constructs or not. My position, and apparently that of Kehoe, is that they need not be so considered. I argue that constructs must be invoked only in the context of a substantive theory. Sackett and Ployhart, on the other hand, argue that all measures taken on people must be viewed as constructs, regardless of whether any theoretical propositions and assumptions are involved. In this response, I present reasons why this need not be the case.