Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Is Content-Related Evidence Useful in Validating Selection Tests?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Kevin R. Murphy
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

The 12 papers commenting on K. R. Murphy (2009a) raise a number of important issues, most of which can be subsumed in one of four themes. First, papers examining content-oriented validation strategies are still necessary and useful, in part because of the frequent use of these strategies in the practice of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology. Second, the term “content validity” means many different things both within and beyond the field of I–O psychology, and it is useful to understand what sorts of inferences examinations of test content do and do not support. Third, these 12 papers present very little evidence that content validation, as typically carried out by I–O psychologists, actually provides information about the likelihood that people who do well on the test will do well on the job. Finally, I believe that the best use of content-related evidence in validating selection tests is in developing hypotheses about relationships between test scores and criteria rather than in testing these hypotheses.

Type
Response
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.

References

Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In Wainer, H. & Braun, H. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 1932). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Binning, J. F., & LeBreton, J. M. (2009). Coherent conceptualization is useful for many things, and understanding validity is one of them. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 486492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, W. C. (1996). Content validity, face validity, and quantitative face validity. In Barrett, R. (Ed.), Fair employment strategies in human resource management (pp. 3846). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F. (1998). Applied psychology in human resource management (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Davison, H. K., & Bing, M. N. (2009). Content validity does matter for the criterion-related validity of personality tests. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 500502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleishman, E. A., & Mumford, M. D. (1991). Evaluating classifications of job behavior: A construct validation of ability requirement scales. Personnel Psychology, 44, 523575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, I. L., & Zedeck, S. (1996). Content validation. In Barrett, R. (Ed.), Fair employment strategies in human resource management (pp. 2737). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
Goldstein, I. L., & Zedeck, S. (2009). Content validity and Murphy's angst. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 495495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, I. L., Zedeck, S., & Schneider, B. (1993). An exploration of the job analysis-content validity process. In Schmitt, N. & Borman, W. C. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 334). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1977). Content validity–The source of my discontent. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1978a). “Content validity” in moderation. Personal Psychology, 31, 205213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1978b). Scoring content domain samples: The problem of fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 499506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel selection. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Guion, R. M. (2009). Was this trip necessary? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 465468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R. J. (1991). Job analysis. In Dunnette, M. & Hough, L. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 71164). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2009). Tests don't measure jobs: The meaning of content validation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 493495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, B. H., & Oswald, F. L. (2009). Clarifying the concept and context of content validation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 496499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, F. J. (1987). Stamp collecting versus science: Validation as hypothesis testing. American Psychologist, 41, 11831192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langenfeld, T. E., & Crocker, L. M. (1994). The evolution of validity theory: Public school testing, the courts, and incompatible interpretations. Educational Assessment, 2, 149165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawshe, C. L. (1985). Inferences from personnel tests and their validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 237238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, E. L., May, D. M., Ulm, R. A., & Gordon, T. R. (1997). A methodology for developing and validating minimum qualifications (MQs). Personnel Psychology, 50, 10051023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muchinsky, P. M. (1999). Psychology applied to work (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2009a). Content validation is useful for many things, but validity isn't one of them. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 453464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2009b). Validity, validation and values. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 421461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K., & Davidshofer, C. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles and applications (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., Dzieweczynski, J. L., & Yang, Z. (2009). Positive manifold limits the relevance of content-matching strategies for validating selection test batteries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 10181031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, K., & Saal, F. E. (1990). Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O’Neill, T. A., Goffin, R. D., & Tett, R. P. (2009). Content validation is fundamental for optimizing the criterion validity of personality tests. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 508512.Google Scholar
Putka, D. J., McCloy, R. A., Ingerick, M., O’Shea, P. G., & Whetzel, D. L. (2009). Links among bases of validation evidence: Absence of empirical evidence is not evidence of absence. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 475480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g. Personnel Psychology, 44, 321332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A., & Teachout, M. S. (1994). Predicting job performance: Not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 518524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relationship between measures of typical and maximal job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 482486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (1987). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (3rd ed.). College Park, MD: Author.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Author.Google Scholar
Spengler, M., Gelléri, P., & Schuler, H. (2009). The construct behind content validity: New approaches to a better understanding. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 503507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. (1999). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Tan, J. A. (2009). Babies, bathwater, and validity: Content validity is useful in the validation process. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 513515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, G. C. (2009). Evidence of content matching is evidence of validity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 469474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonowski, R. F. (2009). “Content” still belongs with “validity.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 481485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. (1978). 29 C.F.R. 1607.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 84 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-q2rfn Total loading time: 0.294 Render date: 2021-01-26T13:37:01.398Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Is Content-Related Evidence Useful in Validating Selection Tests?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Is Content-Related Evidence Useful in Validating Selection Tests?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Is Content-Related Evidence Useful in Validating Selection Tests?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *