| Abstract: | Comments on an article in which G. Barrett et al (see record 1981-11631-001) argued that the conceptual distinction between predictive and concurrent validity has been exaggerated. The present authors offer a more complete classification of validity designs and illustrate sources of differences in the quality of the validity estimates obtained. Five kinds of predictive designs for selection research are identified: (a) follow-up with random selection, (b) follow-up with selection by existing systems, (c) selection based on test to be validated, (d) selection preceding testing, and (e) shelf research. For some of these, and for corresponding concurrent designs, problems arise from the lack of data for informed estimates of appropriate population parameters. It is pointed out that severe range restriction intensifies parameter estimation and the risk of Type II error. Corrections suggested for the effects of contaminations such as age, tenure, and experience are shown to be oversimplifications. It is concluded that on both conceptual and practical bases different validity designs are not equivalent or interchangeable. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
