Premium
What to Make of Content Validity Evidence for Cognitive Tests? Comments on S chmidt ([Schmidt, F. L., 2012])
Author(s) -
Kehoe Jerard F.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
international journal of selection and assessment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.812
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1468-2389
pISSN - 0965-075X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00574.x
Subject(s) - psychology , cognition , inference , content (measure theory) , meaning (existential) , content validity , empirical evidence , cognitive psychology , social psychology , empirical research , content analysis , cognitive reframing , psychometrics , developmental psychology , computer science , epistemology , artificial intelligence , social science , psychotherapist , mathematical analysis , sociology , philosophy , mathematics , neuroscience
This commentary describes practical implications of S chmidt's ( I nternational J ournal of S election and A ssessment , 20, 1–13 (2012)) rationale supporting content validity evidence for cognitive tests. These implications include descriptions of the meaning of six key inferences about local, specific cognitive tests, four of which are supported by the traditional methods of content evidence, and two of which are not. These help clarify the important incremental inference from S chmidt's proposed methodology that cognitive tests supported by content evidence will also be predictive of job performance in the local setting. A caution is raised that content evidence does not support a general inference that local, specific cognitive tests will take on all empirical properties of general cognitive measures. An additional job analysis step is recommended to strengthen the linkage between the specific cognitive job skills/behaviors and the more general theory of general cognitive ability.