Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:46:41.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Content” Still Belongs With “Validity”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Richard F. Tonowski
Richard F. Tonowski*
Affiliation:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and University of Maryland University College
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Room 5NW16H, Washington, DC 20507-0001
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. 481 - 485
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.)

Footnotes

*

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and University of Maryland University College, Graduate School of Management and Technology

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency of the U.S. government.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.Google Scholar
Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-2 (1991).Google Scholar
Gibson, W. M., & Caplinger, J. A. (2007). Transportation of validation results. In McPhail, S. M. (Ed.), Alternative validation strategies (pp. 29–81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1978). “Content validity” in moderation. Personnel Psychology, 31, 205–213.Google Scholar
Humphreys, L. G. (1994). An unrepentant author. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 211–214.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1986). Trait language and behaviorese . In Thompson, T. & Zeiler, M. (Eds). Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 315–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2009). 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., Dzieweczynski, J. L., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Positive manifold limits the relevance of content-matching strategies for validating selection test batteries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1018–1031.Google Scholar
Outtz, J. L. (1998). Testing medium, test validity, and test performance. In Hakel, M. D. (Ed.), Beyond multiple choice (pp. 41–57). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Scherbaum, C. A. (2005). Synthetic validity: Past, present, and future. Personnel Psychology, 58, 481–515.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Author.Google Scholar
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures . (1978). 29 C.F.R. §1607.Google Scholar