Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T19:35:57.256Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tests Don't Measure Jobs: The Meaning of Content Validation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Scott Highhouse
Scott Highhouse*
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Bowling Green State University, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green, OH 43403
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 493 - 495
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

APA. (1952). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques: A preliminary proposal. American Psychologist, 7, 461–465.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Arthur, W., Day, E. A., & Woehr, D. J. (2008). Mend it, don't end it: An alternate view of assessment center construct-related validity evidence. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 105–111.Google Scholar
Arthur, W., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 435–442.Google Scholar
Binning, J. F., & Barrett, G. V. (1989). Validity of personnel decisions: A conceptual analysis of the inferential and evidential bases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 478–494.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.Google Scholar
Brooks, M. E., & Highhouse, S. (2006). Can good judgment be measured? In Weekley, J. A. & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.), Situational judgment tests (pp. 39–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1987). Changing views for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 40, 199–213.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M., & Highhouse, S. (2006). Essentials of personnel assessment and selection. Lawrence Erlbaum .Google Scholar
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238–247.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J. (1986). Stamp collecting versus science: Validation as hypothesis testing. American Psychologist, 41, 1183–1192.Google Scholar
Lissitz, R. W., & Samuelsen, K. (2007). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher, 36, 437–448.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In Linn, R. (ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Mosier, C. I. (1947). A critical examination of the concepts of face validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7, 191–205.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2009). Content validation is useful for many things, but validity isn't one of them. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 453–464.Google Scholar
Schiesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., Scandura, T. A., Lankau, M. J., & Powers, K. J. (1999). An empirical comparison of approaches for quantitatively assessing the content adequacy of paper-and-pencil measurement instruments. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 140–156.Google Scholar
Sireci, S. G. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83–117.Google Scholar
Tenopyr, M. L. (1977). Content-construct confusion. Personnel Psychology, 30, 47–54.Google Scholar